D&D 5E Using multiple initiative systems in the same game?

[Quickleaf]

Has anyone experimented with using different approaches to initiative within the same adventure or campaign?

This probably sounds nuts, but let me explain...

I've noticed that the "everybody roll" sequential initiative (5e's default) creates an undesirable speed bump in the transition to smaller less important combats, whereas it can help set the tone for a more climactic combat.

Similarly, I've noticed that simply using side initiative in 5e can create problems in larger / more significant fights: makes winning initiative too important & reduces the back-and-forth flow between GM and Player.

Here's what I'm imagining: A "zooming" lens of different initiative approaches for three scales of conflict...

Snap Scenes: When there’s one or two monsters of the same type (like a quick guard scene) or just one or two players are involved in a very focused fast scene, it can be resolved with the active/leading player rolling initiative against a DC of 10 + the monster’s DEX. PC wins? They go first. PC loses? Monsters go first. Sometimes, the combat is so secondary to the scene that it can be resolved simply as “resolve the PC’s hostile action" and not even worry about initiative.

This uses 'passive' initiative (the Initiative Score variant from the DMG), but only for monsters.

Typical Scenes: For most combat encounters, initiative is not rolled. Instead, the round begins with whoever triggered the scene (if in doubt, have one PC roll versus one monster to determine who goes first). When that character finishes their turn, they choose the next creature/group to act, and so on. The last person to act in the current round decides who starts the new round – but they can't pick themselves. A creature/PC that hasn’t taken a turn yet this round may interrupt the order if it took damage or if it spends Inspiration or a Legendary Resistance.

This is an idea from Richard Whitters that he's developing for his Ruttiger RPG; it's 'popcorn' initiative but the damage caveat encourages back-and-forth. If there's ambiguity about who is initial actor, either the GM can let the players sort their strategy out, the GM can call for the two debating players to roll against each other, or the Snap Scene roll can resolve between a PC and a monster.

Climax Scenes: For climactic / set-piece / boss encounters, everyone rolls initiative as normal. If the PCs are not surprised, the players may have one minute to make their plan of attack. During initiative, players who have consecutive turns with no monsters in between them may act in any order they wish, including overlapping their turns.

This 'clustered' initiative with a 'football huddle' is what I've been using for my default initiative in all scenes currently. IME it encourages quick planning while injecting some randomness without totally overriding that planing. However, like any method for recording initiative (short of VTT automation) it is definitely a speed bump, so I'm wondering about reserving it for scenes with bigger stakes.

 

[Voadam]

I've played in a game with a popcorn variant of pass the initiative along and it was not quite as quick and smooth as we had expected. It was a bit of a speed bump decision point after each turn in practice.

I do like the idea of possibly doing different systems depending on the role of the encounter.

I was recently thinking of doing a just go in order clockwise initiative for small quick fights. The DM rolls a die the size of the party and opposition and starts there for initiative going clockwise around the table for next to resolve.

 

[Quickleaf]

I've played in a game with a popcorn variant of pass the initiative along and it was not quite as quick and smooth as we had expected. It was a bit of a speed bump decision point after each turn in practice.

I've only used popcorn initiative in small 3-player game, so it's good to hear your experiences with it. Do you think it the speed bump would have been smoothed over somewhat if you'd included the "if you damaged a creature they can act after you" caveat that I mentioned? So that the player only really needs to choose who goes next if they didn't hurt a monster? Or would you still find the speed bump presented by a player having to decide who goes next be not worth it?

I do like the idea of possibly doing different systems depending on the role of the encounter.

I was recently thinking of doing a just go in order clockwise initiative for small quick fights. The DM rolls a die the size of the party and opposition and starts there for initiative going clockwise around the table for next to resolve.

That one I do have experience trying. It was fast, but didn't give the result I was looking for. What I found was that a lot of our quick fights tended not to involve the entire party, but rather one or a handful of PCs. In those cases, rather than having the whole party roll and having to say things like "The wizard PC who was over in this other room hears the sounds of commotion, runs over...ok...and that's their movement, ending their turn", what I found worked better for me was zeroing in on whoever is involved.

For ex, if it were the rogue and fighter and 3 kobolds, and the rogue were trying to sneak up and backstab, but failed their Stealth check, I'd probably just start combat with the rogue going first (not Hidden) along with the fighter, then the kobolds if any survived. If there were some pressing reason why not just having the involved PCs go first... maybe the kobolds are under orders to sound a gong in another room if attacked... I'd have the rogue PC (since they were initiating) roll a DC 12 initiative check; if they won, then the rogue and fighter would go first, if not then the kobolds would.

 

[robus]

Just have the PCs roll initiative at the end of an encounter, instead of before and then you can smoothly transition into turn based narration.

 

[Voadam]

I've only used popcorn initiative in small 3-player game, so it's good to hear your experiences with it. Do you think it the speed bump would have been smoothed over somewhat if you'd included the "if you damaged a creature they can act after you" caveat that I mentioned? So that the player only really needs to choose who goes next if they didn't hurt a monster? Or would you still find the speed bump presented by a player having to decide who goes next be not worth it?


That one I do have experience trying. It was fast, but didn't give the result I was looking for. What I found was that a lot of our quick fights tended not to involve the entire party, but rather one or a handful of PCs. In those cases, rather than having the whole party roll and having to say things like "The wizard PC who was over in this other room hears the sounds of commotion, runs over...ok...and that's their movement, ending their turn", what I found worked better for me was zeroing in on whoever is involved.

For ex, if it were the rogue and fighter and 3 kobolds, and the rogue were trying to sneak up and backstab, but failed their Stealth check, I'd probably just start combat with the rogue going first (not Hidden) along with the fighter, then the kobolds if any survived. If there were some pressing reason why not just having the involved PCs go first... maybe the kobolds are under orders to sound a gong in another room if attacked... I'd have the rogue PC (since they were initiating) roll a DC 12 initiative check; if they won, then the rogue and fighter would go first, if not then the kobolds would.

My face to face group has six PCs.

With popcorn part of it was having to still track has everyone gone before starting the next round.

I don't think having a damage interrupt would have noticeably increased the speed.

For us we rarely have split group fights, the priority is on keeping things running swiftly and smoothly and reducing cognitive load distractions for the DM. So for us I am thinking one roll for determining first actor then a cycle that is easy will probably be best.

 

[Quickleaf]

Just have the PCs roll initiative at the end of an encounter, instead of before and then you can smoothly transition into turn based narration.

That's an interesting idea. Did your players adapt easily to that variant?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

We're going to be trying out side initiative in our new campaign (a little bit like your "Climax Scenes" above) . Possibly having the PCs make a group initiative roll with the highest result being their spot in the combat unlike the Variant presented in the DMG. Then the players can have a quick huddle to decide which order they want to act so they can coordinate better. At least in theory they can coordinate better. We'll see how it goes.

I'd proceed with caution for your "Typical Scenes" initiative plan. It encourages the behavior of "shoot first, ask questions later", IMO, as the players may seek more often than not to get the jump on the monsters/NPCs since whoever states an aggressive action first goes first. I feel like the existing guideline of "first aggressive action causes initiative to be rolled", as determined by the DM, works well and may actually provide more opportunity to parlay or otherwise seek alternatives to combat when resolving an encounter. I have a particular pet peeve about players trying to get an extra action in by declaring they are casting an attack spell or taking a bow shot or whatever, with the explicit expectation that it will happen before I call for and resolve initiative. So take my caution with a grain of salt, I suppose.

 

[Brotton Goodfellow]

I like it. Maybe a bit too granular for my tastes, but I can see the benefit of having initiative procedures for different levels of fights.

I’m currently using side initiative, but at the start of every round. Highest on a D6 wins, ties go to the players. Once it’s settled start lighting fires under the players to decide who is next. I might try popcorn initiative.

 

[robus]

That's an interesting idea. Did your players adapt easily to that variant?

Yep, no problem.

 

[Tonguez]

Popcorn/dynamic initiative is what I use as default along with simultaneous actions - where everyone acts at the same time. And as you said with snap scenes sometimes combat isnt even needed just give the minions 1hp and get everyone who wants to roll attack - if they hit, the monsters are defeated.

Your Climax huddle is good for pivotal boss fights, and works well for encounters set up with lair actions and similar tactical options for the monsters too

 

[LordEntrails]

Why not just roll party initiatives at the end of a combat so you have it set and ready for the next time you need it? You can also pre-roll inits for the encounters when you prep them. Or use an initiative app to generate them on demand.

 

[Quickleaf]

Why not just roll party initiatives at the end of a combat so you have it set and ready for the next time you need it? You can also pre-roll inits for the encounters when you prep them. Or use an initiative app to generate them on demand.

Yeah, @robus was mentioning that "roll at the end of combat" worked well at their table. I can see plusses and minuses. One drawback to "roll at the end of combat" is losing the power of "Roll Initiative" to focus the players & build tension before a significant conflict; "Roll for Initiative" is also a great cue for when the players get to do their "football huddle."

So, I have used pre-rolled monster initiative a bunch. There was a slight reduction in the "speed bump" effect, but it didn't appreciably change things. Still had to resolve player rolls and get situated. But I haven't tried have players pre-roll their initiatives.

To answer your question about "why not use party initiative", my goal is (a) speeding up combat at the initiative phase, and (b) selectively smoothing out "speed bumps" in the transition into combat. Party initiative works. However, it's not the fastest choice. Side initiative, for example, plays faster.

The idea I'm playing with is getting those dials synched up, so that a quick/less important scene is paired with a fast-resolving initiative system, whereas a higher stakes/more climactic scene is paired with an initiative system that has more granularity.

 

[robus]

There’s nothing stopping you from asking for a fresh initiative at the start of an important combat, you could call it passive initiative vs dynamic initiative .

Edit: For me the smoothness of the transition was worth it and the “oh naughty word” feeling from the players when things kicked off was awesome, it kept everyone on their toes.

 

[Quickleaf]

Edit: For me the smoothness of the transition was worth it and the “oh naughty word” feeling from the players when things kicked off was awesome, it kept everyone on their toes.

Nice. What about your roll after combat approach evoked that "oh naughty word" moment for them?

 

[robus]

Nice. What about your roll after combat approach evoked that "oh naughty word" moment for them?

I meant that the combat started organically without there being any combat swoosh, so things got real very quickly.

 

[Enrahim2]

I like the idea of dynamic initiative system depending on the situation. I have played with the thought quite a bit myself. The main deterrent I have found is that rulings with regard to which system to use might be of disproponate importance to players with characters that have taken features that changes initiative. For instance if a player has chosen a feat that allow them to use wisdom instead of dex when rolling initiative, the value of that choice is highly diminished if this choice only matters in climatic fights. Moreover that player might be prone to argue that fights should be considered climatic, or ask for more climatic fights.

By having a consistent initiative system up front that ignore or significantly lessens the value of initiative modifying features up front, the players can chose to avoid them, or have made an informed chase if taking them anyway, rather than feeling cheated if it turns out it never come into play.

 

[Voadam]

Another easy option if you are just wanting speed is the everybody takes 10 for initiative. Everybody knows the initiative order and you go straight into it and transition one to the next with no decision or roll or listing speed bumps, and those with initiative features (high dex in 5e) still go first. The downside would be no variety.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I use @toucanbuzz's initiative system with 1 or 2 tweaks (not listed in the attachment), which sees one rolling every round but I do like the variants you posted for those smaller combat scenes. Nice idea, think I will incorporate.

 

[Quickleaf]

I use @toucanbuzz's initiative system with 1 or 2 tweaks (not listed in the attachment), which sees one rolling every round but I do like the variants you posted for those smaller combat scenes. Nice idea, think I will incorporate.

How do you handle players changing their minds (e.g. due to the situation changing by the time their turn gets resolved) in a "Declare" system like this?

 

[toucanbuzz]

How do you handle players changing their minds (e.g. due to the situation changing by the time their turn gets resolved) in a "Declare" system like this?

They choose how to carry out the Action, but they can't change it in a declare system. Not saying my numbers are perfect, but it speeds up the game a ton, and it's really rare a player can't do anything from actual play because players are surveying the battlefield and anticipating what could happen when they make a decision.

At the moment, after 2 years of declaration initiative, we're trying the original way of doing initiative. Pros and cons. We've already got one player who freezes up nearly every fight with indecision, and it's noticeable. Another gamer has started to pull out his phone during other people's turns (I don't think he realizes he's doing it, checking game books). This wasn't happening during a declare system. Actions were figured out simultaneously and then the combat rounds flowed quickly. However, the predictability of combat turns seems more reassuring to strategic decisions.