declaring actions

[Serendipity]

When I'm GMing, I ask my players for the statement of intent before rolling initiative. Less confusing that way (especially in large groups). In games where I've been a player, there's generally at least one person who takes 20 minutes to decide what they're going to do, and in the middle of a combat round too.

 

[Bullgrit]

AD&D1 had the Players declare ("precisely and without delay") their actions before rolling initiative. I never played it like that, but it's the standard rule. (To my knowledge, it's the only editon of D&D that did combat this way.) Here's an example of it: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/205713-ad-d1-combat-exercise.html

Marvel Super Heroes had the Players declare their actions before rolling initiative. I did play this by the rule for a while, but then dropped it.

Star Wars D6 had this rule, too. I played by it for our SW campaigns.

Battletech (arguably more a war game than a role playing game) also has everyone declare before anyone resolves, but at least you get to roll initiative before choosing your actions to declare.

I don't really like having a declaration phase before/separate from the resolution phase. It just adds extra length to the already complicated mechanics. It only makes a difference maybe 1 round in 10, and usually the difference ends up just being that someone/thing doesn't do something that round, rather than something tactically interesting happens.

Bullgrit

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't really like having a declaration phase before/separate from the resolution phase. It just adds extra length to the already complicated mechanics. It only makes a difference maybe 1 round in 10, and usually the difference ends up just being that someone/thing doesn't do something that round, rather than something tactically interesting happens.

Bullgrit

For most typical actions a declaration can just slow things down for sure. Spellcasting was the one area where it became important.

 

[delericho]

Earlier editions, as well as some other game systems, did have a "declaration" phase, but in my experience, it was often ignored or houseruled away. It was too much work imho- and a lot less fun.

Yep, this was my experience exactly. In theory, a declaration phase seems like a good idea, but in practice it was too much work for too little gain.

Of course, older editions (and other games) also had initiative rolled per round, rather than at the start of combat. I remember several of my players being staunchly opposed to the change, although they were quickly won over when they tried it.

 

[Celebrim]

In 1e you declared your action at the beginning of the turn 'blind' as it were, not knowing what was going to happen, and then the action resolved simultaneously. This helped 1e combat to not feel so turn based. 3e and later combat has the unfortunate attribute of feeling like everyone else becomes frozen when someone else is moving - because that is what actually happens. To try to alleviate the problem, 3e has things like delay and ready actions. However, delay and ready tend to make the game play clunky. Plus you end up with lots of wierd little fixes for problems like, "What if a melee combatant wants to press the attack on a target, and the target wants to retreat? Why does he just have to stand their motionless while the target moves away and does his thing?"

I've often thought about merging 1e with 3e to improve the feel and reduce the reliance on ready actions and triggered actions, but I think 3e adds enough additional complexity from modifiers of various sorts that you can't import the full complexity of 1e in on top of that. And, if I really wanted to try that, I'd probably end up playing Hackmaster or something.

 

[billd91]

AD&D1 had the Players declare ("precisely and without delay") their actions before rolling initiative. I never played it like that, but it's the standard rule. (To my knowledge, it's the only editon of D&D that did combat this way.) Here's an example of it: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/205713-ad-d1-combat-exercise.html

2nd ed did it that way too, but with a d10 for initiative (compared to 1e's d6).

I don't really like having a declaration phase before/separate from the resolution phase. It just adds extra length to the already complicated mechanics. It only makes a difference maybe 1 round in 10, and usually the difference ends up just being that someone/thing doesn't do something that round, rather than something tactically interesting happens.

A declaration phase before rolling iniative does, however, open up different tactical considerations for spellcasters, particularly with 1e/2e casting times and spell disruption. Cast a fast spell or hope for a good initiative score (or a good front line) and cast a more powerful but longer spell? Non-spell casters had a much better chance of disrupting spells as well because any injury before the spell was completed automatically stymied it.

Cyclical initiative has the benefit of being quick to resolve. In 2e, initiative resolution could be lengthy. But spellcasters are a lot harder to shut down when turn order is that predictable. While I have enjoyed cyclical initiative, I'm starting to be convinced that 2e's system for initiative made for a better balanced game.

 

[Celebrim]

While I have enjoyed cyclical initiative, I'm starting to be convinced that 2e's system for initiative made for a better balanced game.

AD&D did a much better job than latter editions of treating the turn based system as an abstraction of real time combat.

1) In 3e, when ever you take your turn, all other activity basically stops and everyone becomes frozen in place. You then have 6 seconds to basically do whatever you want without any interruption. Regardless of what you do, everyone has to stand there and watch you do it. In theory, this is what AoO are supposed to prevent, but in practice its too easy to take a 5' step or something and the opposition is frozen in placed forced to watch you.
2) In earlier editions it was possible for two characters to hit each other (and even kill each other) at the same time. In 3e and latter, you never get that Rocky vs. Apollo, Arthur vs. Mordred, Rand vs. Ba'alzamon, etc. trope.
3) In earlier editions, if characters had multiple attacks in the same round, they alternated attacks until they ran out. You couldn't make 3 or 4 attacks on a target before it reacted unless it was suprised. Instead, you made attacks, and then you got the rest of the attacks later. The dragon went 'claw', and then it went 'claw' and 'bite' later. D&D has always had a problem with initiative being the most important dice throw of the combat, and 3e tended to make the problem worse.
4) In earlier editions, you started an action at one point in the turn and completed it at a later point. For example, you resolved movement while opponent was moving, and then after moving you resolved attacks. Or, you started casting a spell and then sometime later in the round you'd finish it. Between starting it and finishing it, things could happen to you.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Do any gaming systems recommend this latter style over the former?

We played the latter style in AD&D and Rules Cyclopedia D&D. Don't remember if that was RAW or not.

 

[billd91]

3) In earlier editions, if characters had multiple attacks in the same round, they alternated attacks until they ran out. You couldn't make 3 or 4 attacks on a target before it reacted unless it was suprised. Instead, you made attacks, and then you got the rest of the attacks later. The dragon went 'claw', and then it went 'claw' and 'bite' later. D&D has always had a problem with initiative being the most important dice throw of the combat, and 3e tended to make the problem worse.

I'm not sure I'd characterize the importance of initiative in 1e/2e as being a problem. Striking first should be extremely important. But I do agree that 3e raised its importance, particularly at high levels when 3+ attacks are commonplace. And cyclical initiative has an entirely gamist justification in 3e - to make rounds easier and quicker to run.

 

[Freakohollik]

A declaration phase before rolling iniative does, however, open up different tactical considerations for spellcasters, particularly with 1e/2e casting times and spell disruption. Cast a fast spell or hope for a good initiative score (or a good front line) and cast a more powerful but longer spell? Non-spell casters had a much better chance of disrupting spells as well because any injury before the spell was completed automatically stymied it.

I'm not sure how good your chance of disrupting a spell is. Spell casting times are equal to the spell level, but weapon speed factors are usually higher. For example, long sword has a speed factor of 5. The fighter is going to be at an initiative disadvantage until high level spells. How did you run this?