Initiative, Combat Stances, and Types of Actions!

[Eyes of Nine]

Initiative isn't painful, in the sense that nothing in any game at the table is "painful" if your group likes it and it doesn't detract from the fun. However, if it's not in the rules, then you'll have to come up with your own system. And initiative is just one of many possible systems.

What I like about initiative: It's very clear when people take their turns. It also delineates the concept of "turns" or "rounds", within which are discrete atomic "actions" or "moves" or whatever that can be taken. The concept of the "turn" in D&D and its descendants goes all the way back to at least 1e, and probably before that. For a tactical combat game, where there's a bit of competition between the PCs and the GM characters/creatures, the idea of a turn makes things feel more "fair". There is also nothing in a game of D&D more delineatory than "Ok, guys, roll for initiative". It delineates that we are moving out of the shared storytelling space we were in before, and moving into the tactical combat game and are going to engage with the tactical combat game sub-systems.

What I don't like about initiative: It's an artificial construct laid across the story (which I tend to either call "the fiction" or "the narrative"). It moves us away from the storytelling we were sharing before and moves us into the tactical combat sub-game. Which is fine in a game like D&D and games like D&D, which has the history of doing that EXACT Thing.

But in other games, maybe we don't have to leave the narrative shared space, except briefly because we have an in-game conflict and we want to engage with a random element (a die roll, a card draw) to either a) assist the GM in deciding the outcome, b) add a moment of excitement and suspense to the story or c) there may not be trust between the players and the GM that the GM will provide the most awesome outcome to advance the story. (Trust between players and GMs is probably a whole other thread that I'm not actually interested in starting myself; but would participate if someone else started it ).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Initiative isn't painful, in the sense that nothing in any game at the table is "painful" if your group likes it and it doesn't detract from the fun. However, if it's not in the rules, then you'll have to come up with your own system. And initiative is just one of many possible systems.

What I like about initiative: It's very clear when people take their turns. It also delineates the concept of "turns" or "rounds", within which are discrete atomic "actions" or "moves" or whatever that can be taken. The concept of the "turn" in D&D and its descendants goes all the way back to at least 1e, and probably before that. For a tactical combat game, where there's a bit of competition between the PCs and the GM characters/creatures, the idea of a turn makes things feel more "fair". There is also nothing in a game of D&D more delineatory than "Ok, guys, roll for initiative". It delineates that we are moving out of the shared storytelling space we were in before, and moving into the tactical combat game and are going to engage with the tactical combat game sub-systems.

What I don't like about initiative: It's an artificial construct laid across the story (which I tend to either call "the fiction" or "the narrative"). It moves us away from the storytelling we were sharing before and moves us into the tactical combat sub-game. Which is fine in a game like D&D and games like D&D, which has the history of doing that EXACT Thing.

But in other games, maybe we don't have to leave the narrative shared space, except briefly because we have an in-game conflict and we want to engage with a random element (a die roll, a card draw) to either a) assist the GM in deciding the outcome, b) add a moment of excitement and suspense to the story or c) there may not be trust between the players and the GM that the GM will provide the most awesome outcome to advance the story. (Trust between players and GMs is probably a whole other thread that I'm not actually interested in starting myself; but would participate if someone else started it ).

IMO, any game that makes combat complex and interesting as a part of the game in itself, needs something like initiative to avoid that “everyone yelling what they want to do all at once” thing.

Other games can do stuff like making combat 1-3 rolls with some narration, not getting into any details, because they don’t have the expectation or complex combat where the fight is interesting as a thing itself.

 

[dragoner]

“everyone yelling what they want to do all at once” thing.

That is your group, not lack of initiative; though I saw that you didn't get it on your earlier post, I just didn't want to hijack your thread.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That is your group, not lack of initiative; though I saw that you didn't get it on your earlier post, I just didn't want to hijack your thread.

Nope.

My simplified quotation to reference the problem that I have with a lack of initiative is absolutely not my group. It may be a problem you have no issue overcoming, just like I experience no issues with using initiative, but because I don't assume that what I experience is the same as what other experience, I wouldn't ever claim that experiencing issues with initiative is somehow your group's fault, rather than the result of the nature of initiative.

My group, and every game I've watched or been part of or run with a game that has both; distinct combat abilities, and, a lack of initiative, has had to spend more time overall figuring out what everyone is doing before actually resolving the round. What's more, games like dnd where one ability can interrupt or directly react to another ability suffer even more from lack of initiative, because they create much more per round work for the GM, and introduce more adjutication into the resolution than normal, for AFAICT absolutely no benefit of any kind.

 

[dragoner]

Nope.

Then why would your group all start yelling at once? Esp considering it changes nothing vs going clockwise or something.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Then why would your group all start yelling at once? Esp considering it changes nothing vs going clockwise or something.

I mean, I had thought it was pretty clear that "everyone yelling at once" was shorthard for the GM having to impose some sort of order to who declares their actions when, but okay.

 

[dragoner]

GM having to impose some sort of order

That's the beauty of no initiative, players pick their own order, usually after doing their tactical huddle. I'll call out terrain mods, and then the rolls and tactics carry the scene.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's the beauty of no initiative, players pick their own order, usually after doing their tactical huddle. I'll call out terrain mods, and then the rolls and tactics carry the scene.

Yes, I know how it works. It’s really weird to keep insisting on trying to tell me how it works when I state that I don’t enjoy it or see any benefit to it.

 

[dragoner]

It’s really weird to keep insisting on trying to tell me how it works ...

It's weird you asked?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's weird you asked?

I asked for a play example, not an explanation of how it works.
I literally indicated in that same post that I’d seen games run without initiative, and then later when I knew exactly why sort of resolution you were referring to indicated that I had direct experience with it.

So, really, no need for an explanation of the thing I’m already familiar with.