No Initiative Order: How Do You Do It?

[Reynard]

Am I correct in interpreting that the "no initiative order" here specifically refers to initiative order in combat for RPGs with combat?

Assuming that the answer to my Q is "yes," it does make me wonder why the issue of initiative order comes up for combat specifically. I wonder if it's cultural baggage from DND. Or I wonder if there is something fundamentally different about combat vs non-combat situation.

Sorry if this is off-topic. Please feel free to direct me to a different thread if this is discussed elsewhere.

I am mostly curious about your path into RPGs if the idea of turn order/initiative in combat feels weird to you.

 

[Deset Gled]

Assuming that the answer to my Q is "yes," it does make me wonder why the issue of initiative order comes up for combat specifically. I wonder if it's cultural baggage from DND. Or I wonder if there is something fundamentally different about combat vs non-combat situation.

The most basic answer is that RPGs came out of tabletop war games, which were inherently turn based. I suppose you could call that "cultural baggage" for gaming, in a way roughly analogous to how the Magna Carta is "cultural baggage" for legal stuff.

The thing that is generally different about combat vs non-combat situations is the prominence of time as a deciding factor. We use rounds when we need to decide specifically (and typically, but not always, adversarially) what order things go in. In my personal experience, we often call this "combat" by convenience. We use rounds for any situation where the immediate timeline of actions is critical, even if there's no real combat. It could be a basketball game, it could be an escape, it could be acting out a play. Different games have tried many variants to it over the years, including D&D.

 

[Umbran]

Assuming that the answer to my Q is "yes," it does make me wonder why the issue of initiative order comes up for combat specifically. I wonder if it's cultural baggage from DND. Or I wonder if there is something fundamentally different about combat vs non-combat situation.

Well combat - or any situation where a lot of very important actions are happening in rapid succession, and the order in which they happen matters a lot.

And that's the crux of it right there. When things are happening fast, and the order they happen in matters, we tend to need initiative.

Non-combat actions are usually more leisurely, and detailed order of actions doesn't usually matter - and when it does, there's time to say, "Wait! Hold on just a minute!"

 

[definiteFreakyFishGuy]

I am mostly curious about your path into RPGs if the idea of turn order/initiative in combat feels weird to you.

It's not so much that I find the idea of turn order in combat feel weird. But it does feel like when the discussion comes up, it seems like it's about combat. So I'm just curious about combat in RPGs that makes it a point of contention.

My first RPG experience is with DND 5e. When I first started DND, I actually thought it was really weird and confusing that there was no turn order outside of combat, and for that reason alone, I preferred DND sessions with combat. In fact, most RPGs I have played outside of DND have fixed turn orders, like A Quiet Year.

 

[Reynard]

It's not so much that I find the idea of turn order in combat feel weird. But it does feel like when the discussion comes up, it seems like it's about combat. So I'm just curious about combat in RPGs that makes it a point of contention.

My first RPG experience is with DND 5e. When I first started DND, I actually thought it was really weird and confusing that there was no turn order outside of combat, and for that reason alone, I preferred DND sessions with combat. In fact, most RPGs I have played outside of DND have fixed turn orders, like A Quiet Year.

You may find Shadowdark interesting then. One of its quirks is that it has "always on initiative" in and out of combat.

 

[definiteFreakyFishGuy]

I appreciate the responses.

The idea that there are situations where the "order of actions" doesn't matter is interesting.

Why doesn't the order matter? Is it because...

• likelihood of creating inconsistencies is low? (And if there are inconsistencies, it can be easily ret-conned?)
• it has no impact on the "game"? (But if it has no impact on the story, why do we play it out?)

In the DND games I've played, it felt like the order of things did matter even in the non-combat situation, maybe not mechanically but for things to make narrative sense.

To be clear, I am not disagreeing with anyone. Just thinking out loud.

 

[definiteFreakyFishGuy]

You may find Shadowdark interesting then. One of its quirks is that it has "always on initiative" in and out of combat.

I actually saw an actual play with Kelsey Dionne as GM, where she told her players that the order is optional outside of combat.

But yeah, definitely interested in playing this one day.

 

[Reynard]

I actually saw an actual play with Kelsey Dionne as GM, where she told her players that the order is optional outside of combat.

But yeah, definitely interested in playing this one day.

I have a theory that no game designer has EVER run thir game as written, from Gygax to Dionne.

 

[definiteFreakyFishGuy]

Well combat - or any situation where a lot of very important actions are happening in rapid succession, and the order in which they happen matters a lot.

And that's the crux of it right there. When things are happening fast, and the order they happen in matters, we tend to need initiative.

Non-combat actions are usually more leisurely, and detailed order of actions doesn't usually matter - and when it does, there's time to say, "Wait! Hold on just a minute!"

What you are saying makes sense to me. But at the same time, I have a small doubt.

Maybe things are happening fast for the characters, but aren't we the players always playing leisurely at our tables? Can't we, the players, always say, "Wait! Hold on a minute," no matter what is going on in-game?

EDIT: Okay, upon re-reading everyone's replies, I think the need for order usually comes down to two things
1. How high the stakes are. (Narrative)
2. Amount of effort it takes to fix a narrative inconsistency. (Mechanical)

 

[Deset Gled]

The idea that there are situations where the "order of actions" doesn't matter is interesting.

Why doesn't the order matter? Is it because...

Situations that happen "out of order" are governed by either DM control, or by social contract between the players. I wouldn't describe these as cases where order "doesn't matter", or that things are "leisurely". Rather, these are cases where it is decided that DM control or social contract are more efficient than running things in combat order. Combat and rounds have a significant amount of overhead, both in rules complexity and time, that is not needed for all elements of the game.

Going back to my first post in this thread, these "no initiative" systems basically replace rounds and initiative rules with the social contract. And that simply doesn't work for many of the games I have played in.