D&D 5E Old School Initiative

[Charlaquin]

The original post explicitly says the opposite. "First it brings a little bit of unpredictability. Say, I am going to attack Orc #1, Orc #1 dies by fellow player character first. The attack is wasted."

Having players declare specific targets and waste actions if they are dead is the first objective of his change.

Well then the OP’s change is not in line with Speed Factor Initiative from the DMG or Greyhawk Initiative from Unearthed Arcana.

Please be careful before spreading disinformation. What your assumptions are may not match what the OP is actually saying.

I wouldn’t really call it misinformation. It’s accurate information about the one official optional and one unofficial playtest rules variant that involve declaring actions and rolling Initiative at the beginning of each round. If OP is modifying one of those rules, that’s their choice.

 

[Ratskinner]

So...

The Mearlsian Initiative (haven't tried it yet) purportedly gains its speed by requiring all players to declare their actions before the round begins....

Could a similar speed gain be achieved by simply enforcing this pre-round declaration? Has anyone tried this?

I'm half considering a super-simple system:
1: all players declare actions this round.
2: each player rolls d10 (d6?...whatever size is convenient for group, really) for initiative (no mods).
3: each player acts in order going up.

 

[ad_hoc]

So...

The Mearlsian Initiative (haven't tried it yet) purportedly gains its speed by requiring all players to declare their actions before the round begins....

Could a similar speed gain be achieved by simply enforcing this pre-round declaration? Has anyone tried this?

I'm half considering a super-simple system:
1: all players declare actions this round.
2: each player rolls d10 (d6?...whatever size is convenient for group, really) for initiative (no mods).
3: each player acts in order going up.

That's a fine way to simplify the system.

Personally I think the different die sizes are fun. If doing it your way I would use d10 as d6 would have too many ties.

There are some quirks in how the game plays because this is a variant. Mostly from effects that last until the end of a character's turn. So it changes the game a bit, but then we're doing that anyway.

One thing I do is have certain actions take effect at initiative count 0 and end at the end of the round. Dodge is the most common one. It's not fun to Dodge but have the enemy creatures go first and on top of that the character may go first next round rendering Dodge useless. So instead Dodge happens on count 0 though the rest of the character's turn, most commonly movement happens on their initiative.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

We used them in AD&D 2nd, but with a good amount of house rules. It's interesting just for the level of simulation we were going for back then, while now I want quick mechanics that get out of my way.

Let's see if I can remember them.
Roll d10, modify by Dex. I think it was lowest to highest. Add in weapon speed or casting time in segments for spells. Weapon spell was reduced (zero minimum) by the plus of your weapon which everyone had pre-calculated. Any damage during the initiative segments you were casting would interrupt the spell. (So if you rolled a 6 and dex made it a 4, and you were casting a 3 segment spell, then damage on initiative 4, 5, and 6 would interrupt it.)

And I think that if you had weapon expertise or weapon specialization that gave multiple attacks per round, the additional attacks were a +10 initiative each. So you might attack on 4 and 14 if you had two attacks.

Loved it back then, that would drive me crazy now unless I was playing a pure wargame like battletech.

Yep. The slowdown would be an issue, but its generally more about the actual numbers. "So, I have a dagger, and you have a longsword. If I attack you, I get to swing at you before you can hit me?! How does that work?"

As you say, a game where there are many more rules minutiae and focus on the tactics of a fight might be able to make them work. But it wouldn't have the flow of D&D.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

This is not aimed at any particular poster in this thread, but any initiative system that takes the group longer to figure out who goes when than the actual combats last is not worth using. I have been playing since 1st Ed and have seen a lot of variations over the years and I prefer as few house rules as possible to make combat flow as smoothly as possible. Though sort of ironically to this, groups I have played in have always rolled a new initiative every round of combat, mainly because things that influence when someone goes can, and should, change round to round.

 

[ad_hoc]

This is not aimed at any particular poster in this thread, but any initiative system that takes the group longer to figure out who goes when than the actual combats last is not worth using.

Definitely not this initiative system.

It's as simple as you can get. The only added time is rolling for every round rather than just once. I don't think it adds that much time compared to the rest of the combat.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is not aimed at any particular poster in this thread, but any initiative system that takes the group longer to figure out who goes when than the actual combats last is not worth using.

That’s definitely not the case in Greyhawk Initiative or Speed Factor Initiative. Everyone rolls either the appropriate die for their action (in Greyhawk) or a D20 with a modifier based on their action (in Speed Factor) and remembers their own number (which is pretty easy, since you can just leave the die on the number). The DM counts up from 1 (in Greyhawk) or down from 25 (Speed Factor) and when you hear your number you say “that’s me” and take the action you declared. Then the count continues.

 

[dco]

It's an accurate rejection of an awkward un-fun rule to counter a problem that doesnt exist.

It slows down play. This does nothing to remove action paralysis. You thought indecisive people were bad before? Wait until now they can lose their action. And screw up someone else's action! It encourages tabletalk and will result in people getting bossed around by the most tactical player at the table. It creates a bunch more mental work for the DM. It's not even good simulation, which is the normal excuse the "muh v-tude" crowd has for overcomplicating something simple that works well enough.

Exactly.
Bad simulation, bad for narration and roleplaying, slower, more decision stages, more work for the DM, less fun unless you love losing turns or doing the worst things because of the decisions made minutes ago when things were different, etc.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Any system with a possible outcome of "you lose your turn because the thing you said you wanted to do 5 minutes ago can't happen now" is a terrible system.

Holy-Disagree-With-Your-Conclusion Batman!

First, I'm assuming you said "5 minutes" to get a point across and didn't actually mean 5 minutes.

Second..."I leap over the table into a roll to get to the door to block Orc C's exit!" ... ... "I shoot Orc C"... ... Orc C is now dead... ... "Ah-haa!... [sees dead orc with arrow sticking out of it's back]... oh...".

Now this may just be a Group Style thing...but my group and I have no trouble with this. In fact, it adds to the flavour of the game. Sometimes, in a chaotic situation, mistakes are made. And, as far as I'm concerned, a melee in a 20' square room with 5 PC's and 6 Orcs, with a table, some chairs, a couple kegs, some bedding along the wall...well..."Chaotic" would probably be a pretty good description.

We use several different means of Initiative. We change up depending on situation, how long the session has been (re: how tiered everyone is), how many combatants there are, etc. I use the following methods interchangeable during a game session:

1. I just decide who goes first based on unusual situations.

2. Old-BECMI method; each SIDE rolls d6. High roll's side goes first...but 2-handed weapons go last (unless fighting zombies).

3. 1e'ish; each side rolls 1d12, modified individually for each PC (dex adj; -level of spell).

4. Sometimes we use the "Drama Deck" from the Masterbook system and just interpret into 5e.


Usually its #3. Number 2 when there's lots of combatants. Number one when it just makes sense. Number 4 when we feel a little more "story-oriented" that session.


So...yeah...we use a lot of different ones. And yes, I do mean interchangeably in any given session. Keeps things interesting.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Sunseeker]

Hiya.



Holy-Disagree-With-Your-Conclusion Batman!

First, I'm assuming you said "5 minutes" to get a point across and didn't actually mean 5 minutes.

Second..."I leap over the table into a roll to get to the door to block Orc C's exit!" ... ... "I shoot Orc C"... ... Orc C is now dead... ... "Ah-haa!... [sees dead orc with arrow sticking out of it's back]... oh...".

Now this may just be a Group Style thing...but my group and I have no trouble with this. In fact, it adds to the flavour of the game. Sometimes, in a chaotic situation, mistakes are made. And, as far as I'm concerned, a melee in a 20' square room with 5 PC's and 6 Orcs, with a table, some chairs, a couple kegs, some bedding along the wall...well..."Chaotic" would probably be a pretty good description.

We use several different means of Initiative. We change up depending on situation, how long the session has been (re: how tiered everyone is), how many combatants there are, etc. I use the following methods interchangeable during a game session:

1. I just decide who goes first based on unusual situations.

2. Old-BECMI method; each SIDE rolls d6. High roll's side goes first...but 2-handed weapons go last (unless fighting zombies).

3. 1e'ish; each side rolls 1d12, modified individually for each PC (dex adj; -level of spell).

4. Sometimes we use the "Drama Deck" from the Masterbook system and just interpret into 5e.


Usually its #3. Number 2 when there's lots of combatants. Number one when it just makes sense. Number 4 when we feel a little more "story-oriented" that session.


So...yeah...we use a lot of different ones. And yes, I do mean interchangeably in any given session. Keeps things interesting.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

"Mistakes" are, in my group, narrated after-the-fact of missing a roll. "Mistakes" are not Bob choosing a target at the beginning of the round, Bill killing the target before Bob acts, and then Bob getting to do nothing on his turn. That's a failure of the system, not a "mistake" on behalf of Bob choosing the wrong target (which at the time, wasn't a mistake because the Orc was alive at the time of the Action Declaration). I wouldn't mind Bob declaring "I will attack!" at the start of the round, but I wouldn't constrain him to a single target, or a single method of action. That's a sure-fire way to screw over Bob without any fundamental gain to the table. I expect players to make decisions based on information they can reasonably obtain. That Orc C would be dead when Bob's turn comes around is not always information Bob can obtain at the start of the round, and therefore not information I expect Bob to make a decision based on.

5 IRL minutes was not an exaggeration. I usually allow 1 minute per turn. In a 4-5 person game, this can reasonably translate to literally 5 minutes from the start of a round to the end of a round. I encourage people to take faster turns if they can, but I don't mandate it. I hope that between turns, when Bill kills Orc C, Bob is evaluating the situation and speeding up his ability to make a decision on his turn. IMO: battles become less chaotic the longer they move on. They fall into rhythm, enemy goals and tactics become clearer, and the reduction in enemy numbers reduces decision paralysis. Denying Bob his turn when frankly, he should be able to make a new decision faster than before, is just silly.

If I'm not going to let Bob play because Bob picks the wrong targets, Bob is going to ask himself why he's attending. That's a question I don't want players to start asking themselves in my games.