Initiative: Evolutions in design

[Psikerlord#]

The oldest editions of D&D maintained the chaos of melee combat by determining targets randomly. Once engaged in melee combat neither the PCs nor the monsters could select specific targets, all damage was applied to nearby foes haphazardly. Most people probably house ruled target selection effectively eliminating the element that provided the chaos.

I genuinely did not know that, but it makes good sense. As it happens, in our games, combat does tend to break up into little separate melees, just because the whole "focus firing" is a bit, I dont know, too clinical/predictable - I dunno - just doesnt seem right!

 

[ExploderWizard]

I genuinely did not know that, but it makes good sense. As it happens, in our games, combat does tend to break up into little separate melees, just because the whole "focus firing" is a bit, I dont know, too clinical/predictable - I dunno - just doesnt seem right!

It was still possible in the old rules to have smaller melee pockets if the area was large enough and the forces were divided somehow. Anyone within 10' of each other was considered to be in melee range and thus had to take steps to disengage without getting in trouble. In a space large enough, you could have several melees going on if the participants in each group were all more than 10' from the nearest member of an adjoining group.

 

[GMMichael]

So outside of the game, what consideration is being represented in the cinematic action (loosely modeled on the real world) of waiting for your opponent to go first? (Not a rhetorical question--feel free to offer suggestions!)

You haven't specified, in this post anyway, a type of cinematic battle. Gunfight, swordfight, or something else? In a gunfight you choose not to attack first because 1) you still have surprise on your side, 2) you don't have a good shot and need to converse ammo, or 3) you have a deathwish / trying to impress someone. Swordfights are completely different, and could very easily require a separate initiative (turn) system. The only reason you choose to let your opponent attack first in a swordfight is because you know he's woefully outmatched and you want to embarrass him. Otherwise, it's a game of paper-rock-scissors: each move your opponent could do has a prescribed counter. I suspect that swordfighters don't try to get the first hit - they try to get the (actual) initiative. Which then leads to a killing blow.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Right; type of battle makes a difference. In a gun-fight going first and often is a pretty good idea. My examples were thinking of a swordfight or brawl of some sort, though the differences in types is important to consider, so thanks for bringing that up.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I've basically found three systems that work well. Going round the table. Narrative based initiative where the GM basically turns to one person, describes the current situation and says "What do you do?" and the players roll all the dice (Apocalypse World/Dungeon World). And for teamwork Popcorn Initiative (MHRP) where each character chooses who acts next from the characters that haven't acted yet this round leading to interesting dogpiles and swingy combats.

Worst initiative system: 1e. Not only is it fiddly daggers should not strike before longer weapons.

 

[Obryn]

Worst initiative system: 1e. Not only is it fiddly daggers should not strike before longer weapons.

That's 2e, with its wacky applications of speed factors. 1e acknowledges that the longer weapon strikes first.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I've had some new insights for discussion.

Basically, in lieu of initiative, I think what is needed are rules (I use that term loosely) that govern a few different things.

I'm not going to address "who goes first" as one of theses, since I think a simple contest (using your task resolution system) between two characters who are trying to beat each other to initiate an action is all that is needed when such a situation arises where it matters.

Instead, I'm stepping back a bit and looking at what an action scene looks like, and how to manage the flow of that scene.

A good example of a scene I remember that comes to mind is the scene at the end of The Mummy 2 (I think) where the protagonists are in a lost temple in a jungle and are fighting a variety of opponents and facing other dangerous obstacles. Most of the characters are in different rooms from most of the other ones, but the action is all taking place at the same time. As the audience, we see the scene split up between views of each protagonist facing their challenges for a little while, and then on to another one. They aren't cycled through in a set fashion. They simply jump from one to the next based on what makes the scene flow better. You see each protagonist dealing with their own challenges more than once, because they don't linger long enough for them to totally overcome it.

This is exactly what a scene flow rules system should enable.

The things I think it needs to govern are:

A) How to split up into groups. We need to know how to split a party and the challenges they face up into units that we can switch our focus between.

B) How to know when to switch between units (or how long to stay with a particular unit), and which units to switch to. We need satisfying rules (again, I use the term loosely) so there isn't a need to devote brainpower to unguided decisions every single time you switch. It should be, if not obvious, at least intuitive.

C) We need to know how to handle interaction between units. If a character finished off their enemy, and moves in to help a friend who is being overwhelmed, we need framework that makes that easy to adjudicate.

For now, those are the ones that stand out to me.

Thoughts?

 

[GMMichael]

I was pondering similar issues the other day. Not that I'd want my RPG to look like the Mummy 2, but cinematic fights tend to follow a single character until that character meets up with other protagonists, or at least hits a peak or a trough in the waveform of a fight. The problem with following one character for too long is that you can follow him first and his buddy second, though they are effectively fighting at the same time, and if the buddy's fight is much shorter it raises the question: why wasn't he able to come to his comrade's aid? What was he doing between his scene (which the GM played out second) ending and the first character's drawn-out fight?

Another problem is spotlight-time. In the first example, the faster-fighting buddy might feel shortchanged since the spotlight was on his companion longer. He could be interacting with other players while he waits, but if you're not talking to the GM, you're not really having an effect on the world.

This are just trade-offs, really. What you get in exchange for these is more cinematic battles. I don't think you'll find an "easy to adjudicate" system for this. In my system, I'd probably break the battle down into rounds. So each character gets a scene, but after three actions (one round) you'll still have to stop and let the other scenes play out. If you finish your scene during a round, then you'll be able to hop into another scene in the next round.

I guess anything is better than, "I swing. I miss. And I wait for six turns to try it again."

 

[fjw70]

My favorite way to handle initiative for D&D (my main game) is to write the PCs and monsters names on cards and then shuffle and deal out the cards every round. I love the simpleness and uncertainty it creates. When I thrives this in actual play my players at the time hated it. I plan to try it again it's new players.