Initiative: Evolutions in design

[Hyper-Man]

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?

What if the setting allows for faster and slower reacting characters (like supers)? In some situations a 'speedster' might get 2 or more actions before their opponent can respond.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Does anyone feel like explaining why an initiative system is needed at all?

Good question! That's a fundamental design consideration. What components are involved in an initiative system? Which of them are necessary for which parts of a role-playing experience? Are any of them completely superfluous? What challenges arise without any sort of initiative system, and how are they addressed by different systems? Etc...

 

[GMMichael]

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?

Good question. Here are some guesses:

Going around in order: some players get upset that they have to watch other players always go before them. Or players start non-verbally competing for chairs closer to the GM.

Calling out actions: pure cacophony. Followed by arguing about who announced first.

Does an initiative-free system have to make players look like third-graders? No.
Will that keep them from acting like third-graders? No.

 

[Dethklok]

What if the setting allows for faster and slower reacting characters (like supers)? In some situations a 'speedster' might get 2 or more actions before their opponent can respond.

Granted. But I don't immediately see a need for an initiative system to allow some characters to have multiple actions in a round, when they could simply be called on twice in the turn, or do two things when other characters do one.

Good question! That's a fundamental design consideration. What components are involved in an initiative system? Which of them are necessary for which parts of a role-playing experience? Are any of them completely superfluous? What challenges arise without any sort of initiative system, and how are they addressed by different systems? Etc...

Hm, I see... Then my answer is that no components need to be involved, that none are necessary for any part of a role-playing experience, that all are completely superfluous, and that no challenges arise in the absence of any sort of initiative system.

Good question. Here are some guesses:

Going around in order: some players get upset that they have to watch other players always go before them. Or players start non-verbally competing for chairs closer to the GM.

Calling out actions: pure cacophony. Followed by arguing about who announced first.

Does an initiative-free system have to make players look like third-graders? No.
Will that keep them from acting like third-graders? No.

DMMike, when I roleplay with first-graders, I find they have absolutely no problem without an initiative system. Maybe this skill is unlearned in later grades.

 

[ThirdWizard]

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?

Since Dungeon World is a relatively popular RPG that has no initiative system, I have to say it isn't needed at all, and it is just a matter of preference. Personally, I find the lack of initiative system liberating and allowing a much more cinematic gaming experience.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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?

It becomes important when someone is incapacitated or killed to know when exactly that happened. If Bargle the wizard is hit before casting his spell it is ruined. If Jacko the thief takes an arrow to the eye and is killed, then he won't be attacking.

 

[GMMichael]

DMMike, when I roleplay with first-graders, I find they have absolutely no problem without an initiative system. Maybe this skill is unlearned in later grades.

Well, if PCs can agree to march in a particular order, they can agree to act in a particular order, too. It's still important to establish when the opponents act, for reasons cited by [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION]. The GM could hand-waive that too - but then you might end up with PCs having a false sense of security.

"It doesn't matter how fast I can load, draw, and fire my bow. I'm a hero; I'll get to go first!"

 

[Dethklok]

It becomes important when someone is incapacitated or killed to know when exactly that happened. If Bargle the wizard is hit before casting his spell it is ruined. If Jacko the thief takes an arrow to the eye and is killed, then he won't be attacking.

Of course. Then again, there is a difference between an initiative system and initiative rulings. A gamemaster might consistently rule that:

* actions occur simultaneously without interruption, or
* slow actions (spell casting) always occur last, or
* the higher roll occurs first.

(I use the last ruling.)

Well, if PCs can agree to march in a particular order, they can agree to act in a particular order, too. It's still important to establish when the opponents act, for reasons cited by @ExploderWizard . The GM could hand-waive that too - but then you might end up with PCs having a false sense of security.

Why do you write of these things in the subjunctive mood? This is the way we always play (and did play just today). And as ThirdWizard pointed out, some published games work like this, implying that we aren't alone. So gaming without initiative isn't some far-fetched idea, but a fait accompli, and it works for every gaming group I've been in without any of the problems you bring up.

 

[1of3]

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.

I'm not sure the issue at hand has to do with either perspective or turn order. it's about placement.

In D&D you trace where every character is on a map. You are looking at engagements. The question is: Who are you fighting?
YouYou saysay itit yourselfyourself. Character B prevents 3 from engaging A.

You need rules to split a fight into skirmishes. For one character to disengage. etc.

Then you can perform one turn in each skirmish and move to the next. it doesn't have to be the GM who determines which skirmish is next. You can have the leading party in each skirmish do it, or the loosing party or whatever.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Of course. Then again, there is a difference between an initiative system and initiative rulings. A gamemaster might consistently rule that:

* actions occur simultaneously without interruption, or
* slow actions (spell casting) always occur last, or
* the higher roll occurs first.

(I use the last ruling.)

Higher roll goes first? Isn't that basically initiative?