Initiative: Evolutions in design

[Sword of Spirit]

We were talking about new ways of considering and handling initiative over here and I thought it deserved it's own thread.

In designing my own system, I'm replacing initiative with a different system for action pacing. DMMike has his own initiative system innovations.

What have you done to change initiative in your own systems?

To give the run down on how I'm currently handling it (still some fuzzy areas in development), let me tell you a tiny bit about my system.

I'm creating a role-playing system (I specifically avoid calling it a "game" for theoretical reasons, because I believe only some ways of playing rpgs actually should count as games at all) that is intended as a fairly balanced narrativist/simulationist hybrid. (Savage Worlds is a hybrid slanted towards simulationism, for comparison). I want it to represent fictional scenarios as portrayed in books and movies. Everything is aimed at producing the level of abstraction you see or read, rather than pure simulationism, or pure story-based elements. For example, if you see someone using a zweihander vs. a dagger in a movie, it's going to make a consistent difference in the scene. It's worth having a clear difference between the damage caused by them. When it comes to a mace, a longsword, or a battleaxe, only rarely is any sort of difference going to impact the scene, and that comes from creative usage rather than damage values, so there is little reason from my design goals to differentiate them. Just consider them all "average-sized weapons" and you've got it taken care of.

Now, when I started questioning initiative, I started wondering if I needed it at all. Is initiative, as currently used, at all representative of action scenes in books and movies? I submit that it is not.

Here is a scenario with a standard initiative system:

Heroes are A, B, and C
Enemies are 1-4

Round 1:
Enemy 2 moves and attacks hero A
Enemy 4 moves towards hero C
Hero B moves and attacks enemy 2
Hero C...

And so on. The point is that the entire battlefield is intended to be seen and represented from a bird's eye view, which isn't how it is portrayed in fiction.

Here is how a battle between those same characters would actually play out in a movie:

The camera shows enemies 1, 2, and 3 moving towards hero A; hero B moves in and cuts off enemy 3
A fast and furious exchange is shown between hero A and enemies 1-2
The camera switches to show hero B dueling with enemy 3
Change in view, and hero C (not a warrior) is being chased around by enemy 4
Change back to hero B finishing off enemy 3
Back to hero A, who has defeated enemy 1, but is now on the bad side of the fight with enemy 2, when suddenly hero B jumps into the engagement and they team up and take out enemy 2
Switch to hero C who is on the ground up against the wall while enemy 4 is raising his weapon to finish him off...then his gaze goes blank and he slumps over, and you see hero A standing there, having just hit him in the head with the butt of his weapon

What's the main difference here? The difference is that instead of getting a bird's eye view of the battle, you get camera angles (or descriptive paragraphs in a book) switching from different engagements between heroes and opponents. Initiative only matters within an individual engagement.

So that's what I'm going for. The main thing I still need to figure out is how the GM decides when to switch from one engagement to another. It can't be a precise number of exchanges of blows, it definitely isn't going to be one turn for each character in the exchange, but it has to allow for the fact that a hero who defeats his opponents can join another exchange in time to make a difference, without being unbelievable in the pacing.

(Is there any chance we can get a sub-forum for game design and theory?)

 

[ThirdWizard]

So in Dungeon World, there is no initiative, as it is traditionally understood. Instead, actions occur more as you described in your second example. In effect, the GM decides what area of the combat to focus on at a time, and jumps as appropriate to create a dynamic battle scene. What you end up with is a more cinematic unfolding of combat.

Of course, it doesn't do this in a vacuum. PCs and monsters essentially act in unison (mechanically speaking), which helps facilitate this. Also, actions are quickly handled making it easy to jump from one PC or group of PCs to another.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

What have you done to change initiative in your own systems?

It's a largely 1E game but my initiative system is fairly simple, players side versus the opponents rather than individual initiative, has SOME adjustments but not much, and is re-rolled each round. It is used more as a good means to simply introduce a random element into what is otherwise a very boring repetitive cycle (as 3E would have it) because ultimately initiative order has VERY little impact on the overall battle.

I want it to represent fictional scenarios as portrayed in books and movies. Everything is aimed at producing the level of abstraction you see or read, rather than pure simulationism, or pure story-based elements.

An interesting notion, but not one that I think will turn out well in the end. Books, movies and RPG's share many of the same elements - but not ALL the same elements. What works in one DOES NOT always work in the others.

The very first example that springs to mind is author control. In written fiction the author has ABSOLUTE control over the fate of his characters, for better or worse. The first thing an RPG does is TAKE AWAY THAT CONTROL for the protagonists - the central characters - the very reason for the existence of the written story/rpg. That control is split between choices of the individual players of those characters and random chance. In an RPG if the referree attempts to re-exert that control then the RPG fails because it means the DM is "railroading" or worse. But in written fiction for an author NOT to exercise control over the fate of his own characters leads inevitably to failed plotlines, awful pacing, intolerable use of deus-ex-machina and more.

What's the main difference here? The difference is that instead of getting a bird's eye view of the battle, you get camera angles (or descriptive paragraphs in a book) switching from different engagements between heroes and opponents.

The difference is ONLY that you are adding narrative filler and explanation. Initiative in an RPG serves to provide the order in which events are resolved, such that the mechanics work in a fashion that can acceptably equate to a narrative of the battle details. Initaitive in written fiction can be handled in radically different ways. You can tell the whole battle from the point of view of one character, then go back and tell it again from the point of view of another. That can be an interesting approach for fiction. It's an AWFUL approach for an RPG because it leaves all but one player twiddling their thumbs for long periods until all players have had their narrative turns, and having the same battle told over and over and OVER from differing points of view gets tiresome very fast unless interesting, significant things are being revealed each time, whether about the characters, their opponents, or perhaps details not directly related to the battle. What works in one DOESN'T always work in the other. Even between movies and RPG's.

The main thing I still need to figure out is how the GM decides when to switch from one engagement to another.

I'd say that you have to lay out the narrative style that you are trying to emulate and then build RPG rules to emulate it. But they'll still be RPG rules and thus can't follow all the rules for written fiction or films and still be worth playing AS an RPG.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

An interesting notion, but not one that I think will turn out well in the end. Books, movies and RPG's share many of the same elements - but not ALL the same elements. What works in one DOES NOT always work in the others.

The very first example that springs to mind is author control. In written fiction the author has ABSOLUTE control over the fate of his characters, for better or worse. The first thing an RPG does is TAKE AWAY THAT CONTROL for the protagonists - the central characters - the very reason for the existence of the written story/rpg. That control is split between choices of the individual players of those characters and random chance. In an RPG if the referree attempts to re-exert that control then the RPG fails because it means the DM is "railroading" or worse. But in written fiction for an author NOT to exercise control over the fate of his own characters leads inevitably to failed plotlines, awful pacing, intolerable use of deus-ex-machina and more.

I've heard it called The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast: the GM writes/tells the story, and players decide their characters' actions. That comes from attempting plot+game.

My specific way of addressing it involves having three different modes of play: Story, Exploration, or Game. Role-playing stories and role-playing explorations in my system are explicitly not games.

For instance, in my system it is not only allowed, it is actually expected and directed that, in a story, the whole group decides on how (in general) it will end before it ever begins during the setup phase. The playing through the story refers to working out and experiencing the details from the point of a view of a character, and doesn't imply an uncertain outcome of the overall plot. If the story is supposed to be heroic fantasy, you will defeat the villain at the end. If it supposed to be tragic horror, everyone is going to die, go insane, or perhaps there is going to be one lone survivor to tell the sad tale.

The joy comes from putting yourself in a character's shoes and feeling the thrill of the moment, deciding on how the details work out.

Systems for both the players and the GM (kinda--the role is actually split into two) to make sure the overall plot and the character defining elements come to the desired resolution regardless of set-backs and detours, is fully integrated (rather than a band aid solution).

(In an exploration you have no plot, so it is entirely open-ended.)

The difference is ONLY that you are adding narrative filler and explanation.

That's not what I'm going for, and I'd be happy for any advice as to how to make sure it doesn't end up that way.

Initiative in an RPG serves to provide the order in which events are resolved, such that the mechanics work in a fashion that can acceptably equate to a narrative of the battle details. Initaitive in written fiction can be handled in radically different ways. You can tell the whole battle from the point of view of one character, then go back and tell it again from the point of view of another. That can be an interesting approach for fiction. It's an AWFUL approach for an RPG because it leaves all but one player twiddling their thumbs for long periods until all players have had their narrative turns, and having the same battle told over and over and OVER from differing points of view gets tiresome very fast unless interesting, significant things are being revealed each time, whether about the characters, their opponents, or perhaps details not directly related to the battle.

The goal here is that the players will be actively immersed and watching the action with almost as much interest when it involves the other characters as when it involves their own. This is encouraged in two ways: First, it is designed to take no longer than necessary, and there are actually 3 speeds of task resolution depending on what the goals of the scene are. Second, in the slowest speed every detail of description from the player can potentially influence the result of a task, and every point of description on the part of the GM can provide openings for other players. Part of the descriptive elements are resolved after the random components are determined.

GM: The barbarian swings his giant axe in an overhead strike towards you...
Player: I bring my sword up to parry...
(Dice are rolled)
GM: You can tell that your parry won't make it in time, and and the dangerously sharp axe is coming straight towards you...
Player: As I bring the sword up to my right, I lead with the hilt up and the blade slanted diagonally to deflect. I collapse my left knee and push off the ground hard with my right leg, attempting to drop low enough to give my blade time to get between my head and his axe...
GM: You throw yourself to your left, his axe blade narrowly missing your head and hands and scraping down the blade of your sword...You are now laying on the ground a few feat away in a very vulnerable position...

In contrast to most systems I've seen, the degree by which the descriptive elements can alter the outcome is also much higher--in fact it has as much weight as the dice themselves. That's the slower version. In the medium version you aren't going to get that detailed, because it's not that sort of scene, and in the faster version you don't roll at all.

What works in one DOESN'T always work in the other. Even between movies and RPG's.

I'd say that you have to lay out the narrative style that you are trying to emulate and then build RPG rules to emulate it. But they'll still be RPG rules and thus can't follow all the rules for written fiction or films and still be worth playing AS an RPG.

Exactly. When you are experiencing your role in a story, it is a different experience than playing a game, or than exploring a scenario. Each needs it's own set of assumptions and systems for supporting it.

While it might sound like I'm merely defending my system, I actually find great value in these sorts of things that you are pointing out. I would appreciate any sorts of additional examples and pitfalls you can point out. I plan to do my best to make it work, and if I can't, I'll know it wasn't because I was missing some vital idea that I was never exposed to.

Thoughts?

 

[Ketherian]

Rather than describe it as camera angles, I see it as chaos. Knowing the order and style of attacks makes things seem rather orderly in what really should be something almost without order. I've never liked a fixed order in regards to initiative; preferring the possibility for the old veteran sometimes loose initiative and have the young hero.

Not sure if this is what you're going for, but here's how I handle it.

I run a HarnMaster III game. From the rules:
Initiative determines the order in which characters take turns in combat (characters with higher INI move sooner).

Initiative is a skill in HMIII; which means it can be improved over time.
I modified how it's used as follows:

• 
  Roll 1d100 against your Initiative. Rank the result accordingly:
  CS - multiple of 5 below or equal to your skill (note that 05 is always a CS).
  MS - not a multiple of 5, but below or equal to your skill.
  MF - not a multiple of 5, but above your skill.
  CF - multiple of 5 above your skill (note that 95 and 00 are always a CF).

• Compare results against your opponents and allies.

All CS go first, then all MS, then MF, then CF. If further sub-division is required, order within a ranking is based on the initiative skill value.

Harnmaster III also has the ability to counter-attack (that is, attack instead of dodge the coming attack). Risky, but it is something that can further add chaos to the combat.

 

[deinol]

If you want a more cinematic style for initiative, you should check out Marvel Heroics. I forget who gets to go absolutely first, but after each character takes their turn, they decide which character goes next. No repeats until everyone has had a turn.

So if you have PCs A, B, and C and enemies X, Y, and Z you can choose to do:

A-X-B-Y-C-Z (next round) Z-C-Y-B-X-A

Or, you could try and have all the pcs strike hard first, ending up with:

A-B-C-X-Y-Z (next round) X-Y-Z-A-B-C

which lets the enemies go back to back possibly.

It's really designed for the cinematic/comic panel pacing. Works fairly well. Also gives the control mostly to the PCs how they structure the round (well, the GM picks for NPCs, but he should be reacting to how the PCs acted.)

 

[ExploderWizard]

I have been thinking about trying a game without the concept of standard initiative. In this situation, every combatant declares an action and all actions are resolved simultaneously. No matter what happens or who gets killed in a round everyone gets to perform thier action ( much like what happens on a tie in older D&D editions). On succeeding rounds those out of the fight don't act of course.

Gaining surprise will be the only way to strike unanswered. I'm thinking about trying this with GURPS because simultaneous action seems to fit well in the 1 second combat round. All HT rolls and similar checks that normally happen on a combatant's sequence will take place at the end of the round. I might have to try this out in a demo test.

 

[GMMichael]

The Modos RPG initiative system looks like this:

Characters roll d20 and add their favorite ability modifier. Physical ability could represent quickness, Mental ability could represent cunning, or Metaphysical ability could represent intuition. Highest initiative takes the first turn unless...

Surprised characters, if they're caught way off-guard, might have to watch the surprising characters take one action before turns begin.

Play proceeds by actions, and each character gets 3. Each action, initiated by the character whose turn it is, represents a moment in battle. Each character gets to act each moment, like in real life. The only character who is required to act in a moment is the character taking his turn. If even he does not want to act, he can forfeit his turn by choosing a defense action, and delaying the rest of his turn.

Laid out in a grid, with time proceeding downward, Modos RPG conflict looks like this:

Turn	Action#	PC1	PC2	Ogre
PC1	1	Move to defense	Ready sword	Pick up club
PC1	2	Ready bow
PC1	3	Load bow
PC2	4		Attack ogre	Parry
Ogre	5		Parry	Attack PC2
	Next round
PC1	1	Shoot ogre	Parry	Attack PC2
PC1	2	Load bow	Parry	Attack PC2
PC2	3	Attack Ogre	Attack Ogre	Run!

In this system, choosing to do something besides parrying is risking getting hit. Also, you don't have to wait for your turn to take actions - all actions in a moment happen almost simultaneously. Notice that the first round has a sort of good guys-bad guys phase to it, while the second round is a bit more chaotic.

 

[LostSoul]

I have been thinking about trying a game without the concept of standard initiative. In this situation, every combatant declares an action and all actions are resolved simultaneously. No matter what happens or who gets killed in a round everyone gets to perform thier action ( much like what happens on a tie in older D&D editions). On succeeding rounds those out of the fight don't act of course.

This is what I do (or did, I guess...). "Timing" considerations are dealt with by modifiers to the roll you make to resolve your action.

e.g. You're in a dungeon and spot an orc down the hallway. He shoots an arrow at you and ducks around a corner while you shoot an arrow at him. The orc has an advantage because he ducks behind cover, so it's less likely that you'll be successful. We apply a modifier to the orc's AC. The rolls are then made, as normal for D&D (to-hit vs. AC).

 

[Dethklok]

Does anyone feel like explaining why an initiative system is needed at all? What's wrong with simply going around the table in order, or even letting everyone act whenever they call out until each character has acted in the turn?