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
Players who take Excruciatingly long turns: solution?
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="Kinematics" data-source="post: 8675768" data-attributes="member: 6932123"><p>We've switched to group initiative in our game recently. The GM didn't announce it being for any particular reason, though there's the implication that he wants to speed up the combats since we're approaching the end of the campaign.</p><p></p><p>The implementation is a bit more spartan than others have described. Each side rolls a single d6 (the person who rolls changes each round), no modifiers added. Highest value goes first. On a tie, everything all happens at once. (If someone had the Alert feat, I personally would rule that that gives the players first move on a tie.)</p><p></p><p>On the players' turn, the GM just goes around the table asking for each person's action. If someone isn't immediately ready, he moves on, and gets back to that player after everyone else is finished. And while it hasn't come up, if someone isn't able to decide on an action at that point, setting their action to Dodge seems reasonable.</p><p></p><p>Now, why is this faster?</p><p></p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">We don't have to sort out everyone's turn order, whether we'd only do that at the start of combat, or every round. There's only a single pair of numbers to compare, instead of potentially a dozen or more.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">There is only one 'turn' for the players, so everyone's consideration of what to do happens in parallel. With normal initiative order, the sequential nature means any single person taking a long time bogs things down for everyone.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">By default, each player tends to only consider what to do on his turn. If it's not his turn, he's more likely to "check out". That means that on average, each player doesn't really need to engage for 80% - 90% of the round (for anywhere from 4 to 6 players). In addition, the disengage-reengage cycle will slow down each individual player's turn, since he has to figure out where he is, and what's going on all over again each time his turn comes up.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">It's easier to skip a player who's not sure what he wants to do, and get back to him after going through the other players' actions. With standard initiative, it's harder to legitimately do that because it can screw up how the actions get resolved, particularly if monsters have actions between players. If you have [ Player A > Monster A > Player B ], then if Player A is put on pause until after Player B, he can find out what Monster A does, and how it was resolved, before deciding on an action. This can be problematic in some scenarios. With group initiative, there's no way for that to happen, so reordering players is easy.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Continuing #4, there's also none of that, "I delay my turn until after Player B goes" (which also isn't really legitimate in 5E), often used so that players can coordinate their actions. If Player A the rogue has to wait til Player B the barbarian gets next to the monster so that the rogue can use his sneak attack, the standard initiative order means people have to fiddle around with figuring out what order people are moving in, and how much that delay may cost them in other ways (such as the monster moving away, or Player C killing it with a spell, etc). All actions in a round are supposed to be roughly simultaneous anyway, so the group initiative just gets rid of the extra bookkeeping involved.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The GM can move on to the next player immediately after the prior player has declared his actions, even if that prior player has not yet resolved the actions. For example, Player A declares he's going to attack. GM says, "OK, make your attacks. Target AC is 17. Let me know how much damage you do." Then the GM immediately moves to Player B. Player A is then free to do all the rolls he needs, including double checking if other features come into play (eg: a Cavalier using Unwavering Mark, or a Barbarian using Brutal Critical, etc) without the pressure of needing to get done so that the next player gets his turn, and possibly losing out on some of his special benefits because he forgot.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">While it's not explicitly using a timer, the GM doesn't have to wait for each person to sit around and think. It's much easier to do a rapid-fire run through the table, and have the table as a whole under the virtual effects of a timer (without singling any one person out). And on the flip side, once one person is done, he is free to help out anyone else at the table resolve more complicated actions or ideas. With a sequential order, even if someone is ready to perform a quick action, he has to keep that 'suspended' in mind until his turn comes up, which makes it more difficult to help others since the anticipated action may be lost, and then time spent figuring it out again dilutes the value of being prepared.</li> </ol><p></p><p>Most of those are only small improvements in overall speed, but together, and particularly in parallel, it really helps speed things along, and keeps people from disengaging. It is likely to reduce total combat time by at least 15%, and potentially up to 50%.</p><p></p><p>I'll note that this is all at a live game, not a virtual one, though. My gut feeling is that it would be a little harder to manage in a virtual game, but I'm not entirely sure. The virtual game I'm playing hasn't tried anything like this.</p><p></p><p>Also also, someone mentioned the Greyhawk Initiative system option. We've tried that in my group before, and I wouldn't recommend it if your goal is reducing round times in combat. It adds an extra layer of complexity in figuring out which actions correspond to which dice, and then translating that to a new initiative each round. While we eventually got used to it, it was definitely not a fast system.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kinematics, post: 8675768, member: 6932123"] We've switched to group initiative in our game recently. The GM didn't announce it being for any particular reason, though there's the implication that he wants to speed up the combats since we're approaching the end of the campaign. The implementation is a bit more spartan than others have described. Each side rolls a single d6 (the person who rolls changes each round), no modifiers added. Highest value goes first. On a tie, everything all happens at once. (If someone had the Alert feat, I personally would rule that that gives the players first move on a tie.) On the players' turn, the GM just goes around the table asking for each person's action. If someone isn't immediately ready, he moves on, and gets back to that player after everyone else is finished. And while it hasn't come up, if someone isn't able to decide on an action at that point, setting their action to Dodge seems reasonable. Now, why is this faster? [LIST=1] [*]We don't have to sort out everyone's turn order, whether we'd only do that at the start of combat, or every round. There's only a single pair of numbers to compare, instead of potentially a dozen or more. [*]There is only one 'turn' for the players, so everyone's consideration of what to do happens in parallel. With normal initiative order, the sequential nature means any single person taking a long time bogs things down for everyone. [*]By default, each player tends to only consider what to do on his turn. If it's not his turn, he's more likely to "check out". That means that on average, each player doesn't really need to engage for 80% - 90% of the round (for anywhere from 4 to 6 players). In addition, the disengage-reengage cycle will slow down each individual player's turn, since he has to figure out where he is, and what's going on all over again each time his turn comes up. [*]It's easier to skip a player who's not sure what he wants to do, and get back to him after going through the other players' actions. With standard initiative, it's harder to legitimately do that because it can screw up how the actions get resolved, particularly if monsters have actions between players. If you have [ Player A > Monster A > Player B ], then if Player A is put on pause until after Player B, he can find out what Monster A does, and how it was resolved, before deciding on an action. This can be problematic in some scenarios. With group initiative, there's no way for that to happen, so reordering players is easy. [*]Continuing #4, there's also none of that, "I delay my turn until after Player B goes" (which also isn't really legitimate in 5E), often used so that players can coordinate their actions. If Player A the rogue has to wait til Player B the barbarian gets next to the monster so that the rogue can use his sneak attack, the standard initiative order means people have to fiddle around with figuring out what order people are moving in, and how much that delay may cost them in other ways (such as the monster moving away, or Player C killing it with a spell, etc). All actions in a round are supposed to be roughly simultaneous anyway, so the group initiative just gets rid of the extra bookkeeping involved. [*]The GM can move on to the next player immediately after the prior player has declared his actions, even if that prior player has not yet resolved the actions. For example, Player A declares he's going to attack. GM says, "OK, make your attacks. Target AC is 17. Let me know how much damage you do." Then the GM immediately moves to Player B. Player A is then free to do all the rolls he needs, including double checking if other features come into play (eg: a Cavalier using Unwavering Mark, or a Barbarian using Brutal Critical, etc) without the pressure of needing to get done so that the next player gets his turn, and possibly losing out on some of his special benefits because he forgot. [*]While it's not explicitly using a timer, the GM doesn't have to wait for each person to sit around and think. It's much easier to do a rapid-fire run through the table, and have the table as a whole under the virtual effects of a timer (without singling any one person out). And on the flip side, once one person is done, he is free to help out anyone else at the table resolve more complicated actions or ideas. With a sequential order, even if someone is ready to perform a quick action, he has to keep that 'suspended' in mind until his turn comes up, which makes it more difficult to help others since the anticipated action may be lost, and then time spent figuring it out again dilutes the value of being prepared. [/LIST] Most of those are only small improvements in overall speed, but together, and particularly in parallel, it really helps speed things along, and keeps people from disengaging. It is likely to reduce total combat time by at least 15%, and potentially up to 50%. I'll note that this is all at a live game, not a virtual one, though. My gut feeling is that it would be a little harder to manage in a virtual game, but I'm not entirely sure. The virtual game I'm playing hasn't tried anything like this. Also also, someone mentioned the Greyhawk Initiative system option. We've tried that in my group before, and I wouldn't recommend it if your goal is reducing round times in combat. It adds an extra layer of complexity in figuring out which actions correspond to which dice, and then translating that to a new initiative each round. While we eventually got used to it, it was definitely not a fast system. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Players who take Excruciatingly long turns: solution?
Top