Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Old School Initiative
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7344599" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>So despite dodging the question, the answer is no, you haven’t actually tried either Greyhawk Initiative or Speed Factor Initiative in 5th Edition, as presented in UA or the DMG. That’s fine, if the default Initiative system works for you, more power to you in using it. There is, however, a continuing pattern of people who say the Greyhawk/Speed Factor system(s) are terrible and slow not actually having tried them, and people who have tried them saying that in their actual play experience, these systems are not significantly slower and in fact flow better than the default system.</p><p></p><p></p><p>There is a world of difference between declaring an action at the top of the round, after seeing the current layout of the battlefield and hearing what the monsters are gearing up to do, as compared to making your decisions at home, away from the table, devoid of context. This is false equivalence and a fallacious argument.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Greyhawk Initiative and Speed Factor Initiative don’t take any of those things into account, and their primary benefit is the narrative pacing and flow of combat, not simulation. Interestingly, another pattern in this conversation is people who have not tried these alternate Initiative systems but claiming they’re terrible assuming that simulation is the reason people use them, while people who have actually tried them say that no, simulation is not the reason they like these systems, pacing is.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This sentence is a little difficult to parse, but players do have the opportunity to react to the current situation on their turn under Greyhawk and Speed Factor. They are only locked into the decision of what action to take (and by default Greyhawk, if they want the option to move). Everything about where to move and how to use the action is still decided on the player’s Initiative count.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The decisions are in fact simplified. In standard Initiative you have to decide if and where to move, what action to take, and any necessary targets all on your turn. In Speed Factor Initiative you only need to decide which action to use at the top of the round, and decide on your turn if and where to move and any necessary targets. In Greyhawk Initiative you only decide what action to use and whether to move at the top of the round, and where to move and necessary targets on your turn. In all three cases you are making the same number of decisions per round, but in Greyhawk and Speed Factor you make a subset of those choices at one point and the rest at another, which means there are fewer variables to account for at the time of making each of those decisions. You also have to make some of those decisions with incomplete information. This means you do not have the luxury of weighing every possible variable and trying to plan out the ideal options, instead you have to be satisfied with something good enough and move on. Since you’re also doing this during a shared decision making time instead of personal decision making time, there is more pressure to make your decision quickly. Finally, I am not calling the designers liars. They said these systems were <em>more complex</em>, not <em>slower</em>. And they are more complex. I find the added complexity to be a worthwhile trade in exchange for better gameplay flow for some groups, and not worth it for others. It depends on the experience of the players and their familiarity with the system in general and with their characters’ abilities in particular. You may not find it worthwhile for any group, and that’s perfectly fine. But please do not call <em>me</em> a liar for saying that, in much experience, these systems <em>do</em> improve the flow of the game, while not noticeably impacting the total time it takes.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That’s their decision to make. Personally, if more work on my part will make the game better for the players, I’ll do that extra work, as long as the amount of extra work is outweighed by how much it improves the game. I think most DMs would agree, although everyone has different thresholds for how much payoff they consider worth how much work. In this case, I find these alternate Initiative systems to be only a small amount of work for a significant payoff, but only if the players are fairly experienced. Your mileage may vary, and that’s perfectly fine.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7344599, member: 6779196"] So despite dodging the question, the answer is no, you haven’t actually tried either Greyhawk Initiative or Speed Factor Initiative in 5th Edition, as presented in UA or the DMG. That’s fine, if the default Initiative system works for you, more power to you in using it. There is, however, a continuing pattern of people who say the Greyhawk/Speed Factor system(s) are terrible and slow not actually having tried them, and people who have tried them saying that in their actual play experience, these systems are not significantly slower and in fact flow better than the default system. There is a world of difference between declaring an action at the top of the round, after seeing the current layout of the battlefield and hearing what the monsters are gearing up to do, as compared to making your decisions at home, away from the table, devoid of context. This is false equivalence and a fallacious argument. Greyhawk Initiative and Speed Factor Initiative don’t take any of those things into account, and their primary benefit is the narrative pacing and flow of combat, not simulation. Interestingly, another pattern in this conversation is people who have not tried these alternate Initiative systems but claiming they’re terrible assuming that simulation is the reason people use them, while people who have actually tried them say that no, simulation is not the reason they like these systems, pacing is. This sentence is a little difficult to parse, but players do have the opportunity to react to the current situation on their turn under Greyhawk and Speed Factor. They are only locked into the decision of what action to take (and by default Greyhawk, if they want the option to move). Everything about where to move and how to use the action is still decided on the player’s Initiative count. The decisions are in fact simplified. In standard Initiative you have to decide if and where to move, what action to take, and any necessary targets all on your turn. In Speed Factor Initiative you only need to decide which action to use at the top of the round, and decide on your turn if and where to move and any necessary targets. In Greyhawk Initiative you only decide what action to use and whether to move at the top of the round, and where to move and necessary targets on your turn. In all three cases you are making the same number of decisions per round, but in Greyhawk and Speed Factor you make a subset of those choices at one point and the rest at another, which means there are fewer variables to account for at the time of making each of those decisions. You also have to make some of those decisions with incomplete information. This means you do not have the luxury of weighing every possible variable and trying to plan out the ideal options, instead you have to be satisfied with something good enough and move on. Since you’re also doing this during a shared decision making time instead of personal decision making time, there is more pressure to make your decision quickly. Finally, I am not calling the designers liars. They said these systems were [i]more complex[/i], not [i]slower[/i]. And they are more complex. I find the added complexity to be a worthwhile trade in exchange for better gameplay flow for some groups, and not worth it for others. It depends on the experience of the players and their familiarity with the system in general and with their characters’ abilities in particular. You may not find it worthwhile for any group, and that’s perfectly fine. But please do not call [i]me[/i] a liar for saying that, in much experience, these systems [i]do[/i] improve the flow of the game, while not noticeably impacting the total time it takes. That’s their decision to make. Personally, if more work on my part will make the game better for the players, I’ll do that extra work, as long as the amount of extra work is outweighed by how much it improves the game. I think most DMs would agree, although everyone has different thresholds for how much payoff they consider worth how much work. In this case, I find these alternate Initiative systems to be only a small amount of work for a significant payoff, but only if the players are fairly experienced. Your mileage may vary, and that’s perfectly fine. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Old School Initiative
Top