Freeform initiative alternative

[Whimsical]

I encountered this interesting way to run combats when I was playing an Living Forgotten Realms session in GameStorm. The DM would notify which characters go before the monsters. Whoever spoke up first could go first, but if he stalled at anytime, the DM would then ask the other active players what they were going to do to get them started. Once someone came to a decision, they would go at that point and do their selected action. When all of the eligible players have gone, the DM would run the monsters in whatever order he wanted. After that, all of the players could jump in to do their actions when they've decided what to do.

It sounds chaotic as hell (especially since he didn't even explain what he was doing at first,) but after the first couple of rounds it was working really well. Turns out only one or two players wanted to do their thing right away and the rest responded based on what happened with their turns. Sometimes turns intertwined where a couple of players moved their miniatures at the same time and then they both got the benefit of flanking their target, for example.

Does anyone have any more information about this method? I don't want to try it until I'm ready to handle the peculiarities of this method. Anyone else use this method? Let me know about your experiences and feedback about it.

Thanks.

 

[IronWolf]

It sounds similar to how initiative sort of runs in the home game I play in. To me it is a good way to speed a combat up a bit by allowing people ready to state their actions, while the ones that need a little longer the time to think while those who were ready start their actions and dice rolling.

Our DM has us roll initiative and those of us that beat the monsters get to go first. Then the critters go and then whoever was lower in initiative next.

After a round or two it pretty much comes down to the group that beat the monsters in init, the monsters and then the party members that were after the monsters.

It seems to work well for us and keeps the combat moving.

 

[weem]

Been doing this for a long while now. Here's my write-up from back then (here at EN World)...


Basically PC's/Creatures roll initiative. Those players who beat the creatures go (if any do) then the creatures go (all of them) then back to ALL PC's including those who got to go before the creatures and we then simply alternate from there, Creatures > PC's > Creatures > PC's etc.

Players decide amongst themselves who is going to go, who follows next etc. It keeps everyone engaged, and those who are not quite ready figure it out while the others go. It also allows for more player strategy (you go here, then i will go here and do this) etc. It's all per RAW since a) everyone can delay to go at the same-ish time and b) you can shout commands as free actions.

This method (referred to as the ars ludi method) sped our encounters up enough that nothing else needed to be done. It's become one person after the next after the next - bam bam bam, no real downtime between each persons actions.

As has been pointed out to me, it is not EXACTLY per RAW because you can have a situation where, let's say for example, someone is unconscious... so when it comes back to the PC's turn, they could (using this method) have the cleric go first and heal the unconscious player, who could then stand when the cleric is done and have his turn -- but as per RAW if you are unconscious, you can not delay -- so you could argue the unconscious player has to roll his death save before the rest of the players go and do nothing else, etc. I let it go (the one time it has happened from what I remember). These little workings of the system are exciting to the players and don't hurt the encounter imo.

Again, this has 1) saved us a lot of time and 2) made the encounters much more dynamic and exciting. Previously it was easy to ignore what happened after you went - the battle field was going to change so much as players kind of did their own thing etc that there wasn't much of a point to plan what you were going to do next - might as well do something else. Now, the mobs go (I am quick at running this) and then right back to PC's who have been watching it unfold and have been planning as it went for how they were going to (together) setup their next turns.

This is the method I use, but it is NOT my invention. You can see it here... http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.ph...silent-killer/

I can't stress enough how much this sped up our encounters. Do they only take 15 minutes? No, but they are quick for the number of people we have (4 at least, and up to 7 at times).

My friend has been using it in his campaign as well, but this last weekend he decided to switch back (to the standard initiative method) during one encounter. He is going to make a program that tracks initiatives (which has been done before) BUT also has a really easy method for tracking conditions etc - so he wanted to test something. Anyway, that encounter was much slower - it took longer to setup, we weren't really sure who was up next (suppose he could have called out "on deck" but he didn't) - we couldn't setup combination's since our turns were all spread out with mobs in-between etc. Anyway, he said "that took too long" - not just for players to figure out what they were doing, but also for the DM to manage his side of it, so we went back to this method (above) after that.

Anyway, this has worked well for me and the other three games I am in. It's sped things up and made combat more dynamic at the same time. Try it for one encounter

 

[mach1.9pants]

WHFRP3E has a similar system. Everyone has their own initiative bonus and roll but then, round by round, they are available to anyone in the group.

Quite like that idea and thinking of dragging it into my home brew campaign.

 

[Nikosandros]

Been doing this for a long while now. Here's my write-up from back then (here at EN World)...

How do you handle a mixed group of monsters? Do you average their initiative bonuses or do you average their initiative rolls or something else?

Also, what happens if a PC or a monster readies an action which is then triggered by an opponent?

 

[weem]

How do you handle a mixed group of monsters? Do you average their initiative bonuses or do you average their initiative rolls or something else?

If there's two groups and their bonus is close, yea I average them. If the bonus's are farther apart, or if there are three and the highest is far apart from the others, I will use the lower bonus (or the middle bonus in the case of 3 different bonus) and roll twice choosing the higher roll.

Sometimes, however, if there is a leader/elite etc and I feel like they have intelligent help/minions and are in territory that is home to them (in other words, if I feel like they have an advantage) I will simply toll using the higher initiative (that of the leader/elite/etc).

With all that said, I don't worry too much about it. It's better to quickly do it and move on.

Also, what happens if a PC or a monster readies an action which is then triggered by an opponent?

We rarely use readied actions - at least not during combat etc.

But in the event it is used, you don't change the initiative order (in this system). This system works on the assumption that the PC's and mobs are delaying to act as one. Let's say a PC readies to shoot an orc when it gets close... it is triggered, and he shoots.

Now, instead of this order...

1) Monsters
2) PC's

You would have this...

1) Monsters (in front of the trigger)
2) PC (who readied and shot)
3) Monsters (after the trigger)
4) PC's (all the rest)

So, when it comes back around to #2, the PC (using this system) should be assumed to delay back to #4, thus getting us back to PCs > Monsters > PCs > Monsters, etc.

 

[Pbartender]

So, I'm curious...

How is this really any different than how initiative is currently run, assuming the players are making frequent use of the "delay" action?

 

[weem]

So, I'm curious...

How is this really any different than how initiative is currently run, assuming the players are making frequent use of the "delay" action?

Exactly! As far as rules go, it works as per RAW.

BUT, using this system has benefits that you are not getting by going off individual init roles. I would explain but... I did already in the 3rd post.

<edit> Just realized your response may have only been to the OP and not my own - if that's the case, check out my post above (#3) for one idea </edit>

 

[Pbartender]

Exactly! As far as rules go, it works as per RAW.

BUT, using this system has benefits that you are not getting by going off individual init roles. I would explain but... I did already in the 3rd post.

But that's just it... Aside from an general attentiveness gained from what is effectively just a placebo, nothing really changes.

That's not to say it's not useful, if that's what works for your group. Sometimes a little change in perspective is really all that's needed.

In my group, I instead use little folded index card name tags that I hang off the top of my DM screen in order... Everybody can see at a glance when they get to go in the turn order, and if you aren't reasonably ready when your turn comes up, you get automatically delayed until you are. If my players didn't have a specific turn order, they'd spend all sorts of time trying to figure who should go first.

To me, it just doesn't really seem all that much of an alternative from bog-standard intitative. After all, you'll still need to roll individual initiatives to determine which characters get to act in the "pre-monster" group in that first round, not to mention the systems you require for determining the initiative of the group of monsters.

Eh... Six of one -- a half dozen of the other... Use it if it helps.

 

[weem]

Eh... Six of one -- a half dozen of the other... Use it if it helps.

/shrug

I was describing it recently to someone as follows...

The 'individual init' system (the standard setup) results in one player "leaning in" at a time - engaged in the setup, and plotting his moves. The rest of the group has no incentive to "lean in"... they are all sitting back, waiting for their turn because the battlefield is changing too much to plan too far in advance. Some get up to get a drink, others draw or read, etc - but they are not engaged.

This variant system however has all of the players "leaning in" TOGETHER, at the same time - all with an immediate interest in what is going on. They are all working together, plotting and planning - excited to unleash this rounds's actions against the monsters... "Yea, cool, if you do that then I can do THIS." "And once you guys do that, I will blast this area with THIS" etc.

When it goes to my turn (monsters), they are all watching to see how their one cohesive plan (that they worked on together as a team) affects the monsters. They watch and plot together again.. "Oh, look how they moved here... Joe, when it comes back to us, didn't you have some area daily you wanted to use?" etc.

One system promotes individuality, the other, teamwork.

One system requires cards, or white boards to carefully track initiative order, the other is much more fast paced and gets those who are ready to go moving, while those not yet prepared work out what they want to do.

These may look the same on paper - but they do not play the same at all.