As has been pointed out, I didn't demonstrate my initiative system as well as I could have. I'll try to do better in the future, probably by scripting out my videos more thoroughly. For now, I might make an appendix to this video, using the other example that I'd made, but had cut for time. I think it better demonstrates what I'm talking about. One commenter asked whether the monsters could have used their turn to take a defensive action, and they were correct, that's exactly what I should have done in this example. Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts and recommendations, you're the best!
I'm sorry, but the example you used is possibly the worst example you could have chosen to try and prove the merits of your own system. It doesn't sound like a bad system, but the way you've structured the environment and where the party is placed is what's causing the problem, not initiative. See, you've gotten them trapped in a 5-foot hallway with no means of maneuvering around each othet, creating a traffic jam. If the monsters go before the players, they will approach the hallway and create another traffic jam at the exit so the party cannot move and the monsters cannot all participate. The only solution, then, is to allow the party to go first so they can untangle themselves. The issue is that, by the rules of your system, the smaller group goes first. With four party members and three monsters, the monsters would always go first and create a worse traffic jam, but you ignored the rules of your own system to allow the players to go first so they could untangle the jam and make your system look good. The example clearly does not work because you are not addressing the actual problem here, which is map design.
It's always great for designers to hear feedback. I felt like the party gets initiative because the monster group may not yet be aware of the players so ambush goes first. Also, I have run styles where dungeon was laid out as we play or I wanted to reveal the boss room suddenly, so the players did not prepare for it and were in a line like the example right before the doorway.
Hmm, that is a bit unfortunate. I'm increasingly thinking I should have used the other example I prepared. I think it might have been a better demonstration, but I cut it for time. In the future, I'll try not to skew the perspective on my material as I've done here. My intention with this series is to create an open conversation about game design, and that doesn't really work if I smudge the flaws and highlight the good parts. So thank you for your feedback! This is the kind of feedback that allows me to grow as a creator, which I appreciate. If I made an appendix video to this one, would that be valuable, do you think?
@@elementalyarn In addition to the upper comment, hallways and chokepoints naturally produce the sort of mobility and access restriction that showed up in this example and is actually a basic and primary terrain strategy in real world conflict. That chokepoint limited the number of enemies who could attack the players with the tank up front. While it prevented the rogue from engaging in melee, otherwise, it was probably to the players' advantage. Rather than preventing tactics, using the terrain in this manner is tactics. Players rarely understand how to set up or capitalize on such conditions, though.
Came here to say the same. Your system does not seem bad at all (I actually really believe it can be cool), but the example makes it awful, because the first thing that you say is "in this situation, the monsters act first....and because of the scenario, they delay their turns and go second", which is something you yourself accused of being sort of pointless in the beginning of the video.
@@elementalyarn actually I think the example you used is a good one (though I'd love to see the other example too), but with the caveat that in this case, despite having the smaller force, the monster unit would choose to hold its turn or skip a turn for terrain reasons. As you explained, in normal D&D with initiative, you could end up with several of the characters getting good rolls but skipping because they are stuck. Which sucks. In your system, there is simply players Vs monsters, so it is not such a big deal for either players or monsters to choose to skip or hold their turn. After just one single turn, the order no longer matters, it is simply back and forth, and everyone is in a good position. So ordinarily, it would make sense both narratively and gamewise for the small force to go first. But in this particular terrain situation it makes sense for the smaller monster force to hold their attacks. And, as the monsters are controlled by the GM, in any encounter it is no big deal for the GM to decide "in this situation, the monsters get to surprise you and go first" or "in this particular situation, the monsters are going to wait where they are at let you come to them". Could even implement some kind of "guard mode" where players or enemies can take a defensive posture and get a bonus to dodging attacks. So the enemies choose to skip their turn, the players get to attack them first, but the players' first attacks are at a disadvantage. So the monsters choosing to stay put makes tactical sense for them.
This definitely will help combat move along faster and keep everyone interested and involved, instead of waiting for the current players turn to be over because they are thinking or figuring out what to do in the moment, it's less of "who's turn is it? or "who goes next?" and more of "it's us VS them" and makes teamwork feel more fluid.
I’ve drifted towards this sort of system over the past few years. It requires a lot of trust from my players but combat often “makes sense “ now. On other occasions, I have everyone roll for initiative as a party, then they can decide who takes which number. It makes for an enjoyable combat. So the rogue can get a high score but give it to the fighter.
A very good solution! I think one of the new One D&D feats actually provides that ability. I think it's not ideal to lock what is, in my opinion, an essential fix behind a feat tax, but at leas they realize there's some room for improvement there.
@@elementalyarn I use a simultaneous missiles, magic, melee system where the weapons with the longest reach goes first with no initiative roll at all. This is amazingly FAST, it's tactical, logical, dynamic, and actually makes weapon choices important. One round bleeds into another, and it's something that makes players think about what their back up weapons are going to be. This was largely inspired by watching HEMA (Historic European Martial Arts) experiments where they test spear vs. long sword and what a reach advantage a spear has. Replacing initiative experiment: New Combat Order of attacks. 1. Initial missile attacks: bows and crossbows, then thrown weapons such as spears, hand axes, daggers, etc. 2. Magic: Wands, staves, rods, rings and other items with stored spells go first, then cast spells, and finally spells read off scrolls or straight out of spell books 3. Melee & middle missile attacks: Weapons with the longest reach will go first-This order will repeat for character with multiple attacks unless circumstances dictate otherwise-for instance the party is in a very tight press and long weapons are too unwieldy. • Pole weapons that are 8+ ft. (pikes excluded for obvious reasons) • Long weapons: Two handed swords, great axes (Dane axes), pole axes, 6’ spears, quarter staff, etc. • Medium weapons: Bastard swords, long swords, maces, any one-handed weapon between three and four feet long. • Short weapons: Short swords, clubs, daggers, iron spikes, rocks, shield punches, etc. and finally, claws, fists, grappling attacks, etc. 4. End of round missile fire: bows and crossbows, then thrown weapons such as spears, hand axes, daggers, etc. I'll never call for another initiative roll again. Something to consider for your system as well---the large group vs small group dynamic. You have really touched on something that's very true, how a smaller group can often react to a situation faster than a larger group, but this depends training and how long a group of people have been working together. One of my players is a firefighter and many moons ago I was in the army. Decisions cease to be decisions when you just know what the person to the left and right of you is going to do in any given situation. Your volleyball example is a good one for people who haven't been playing together long---for people who have been on a team together for a while, however, they would have a system to deal with that situation. In D&D context, one tweak you might want to make to reflect this---if 50% of the party or more has been adventuring together for at least two levels (you might use game chapters if you're not using a level system), reduce the party size by one person. So let's say you start out with a party of six people who by the time they reach 4th level, only four of those original characters have survived. This is still over 50% of the overall party size, so they would act and react to situations as though they only had five characters instead of six. New characters will wind up fitting in and filling out gaps pretty quickly as they see and learn how the team works together. At seventh level, this number might drop to 4, and tenth level, three characters. And place a rule that teamwork can't reduce further than half the party size. It's an intangible factor that has tangible results, and one I suspect your players will appreciate.
While I do appreciate the simplicity, I'm not sure that determining group initiative by group size isn't a little dangerous in terms of its knock-on effects. Simply having the smaller group go first (aside from feeling increasingly arbitrary the larger the groups get) potentially encourages maladaptive behaviour among the party. In particular, friendly NPCs that tag along for an adventure become a liability because they make the party larger and increase the chance that enemies will be able to act first. If players get wise to this, they might start trying to avoid having anyone join the PCs whenever combat looks likely, which is totally counterintuitive tactically and narratively as well as taking tools out of the GM's arsenal.
The coolest initiative system i've see is "Popcorn" initiative, take your turn and then choose who goes next that hasn't gone this turn! I saw it used in Power Rangers HyperForce! Shadow of the Demon Lord also has a great initiative system, You choose Quick(1 action) or Slow (2 actions) and quick PC's goes first, then quick NPC's, then slow PC's and then slow NPC's!
I play Popcorn (or "elective order") initiative almost exclusively in my Fate games now. It is actually pretty awesome. I think this would combine nicely with a Big Boss that gets multiple turns of some kind. I know D&D has legendary actions, but I would just give them N turns and split them evenly (say, if it´s fighting 6 players, maybe it always goes after every 2 PCs have acted, so it gets 3 turns per round).
I am currently studying TTRPG systems, not every single one of course (there are tons of them), but the ones I encountered, even the very new and "revolutionary" systems, none of them felt like that they really get combat right, and I did not know why. Most of them have a lot of good ideas and systems for non-combat gameplay, but I felt that none of them tackled combat quiet right. They simplified or complicated it too much, it felt unrealistic, gamey or just boring altogether. After this video it just clicked (at least for me) that initiative were the "elephant in the room" all along. You are really onto something, I will check your game and will see where it goes, but bravo sir, I am impressed with such an easy solution most game developers did not even think about (myself included). Not only you sped up the boring parts, but encouraged teamplay with this! It may not be everyones cup of tea, but I like it very much, thank you! Keep up the good work!
Thank you so much, I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way! And hey, if you want to check out the playtest document, it's live as of yesterday! Check the description of my latest video to download it and join our Discors server!
@@elementalyarn I watched that video before this one, but wanted to check every single one and felt like the combat system is the most revolutionary from all of the ideas, so I left the comment here, instead of that video, just to praise this particular part. Will download the document soon and check it out!
@@elementalyarn Since then I come across similar initiative systems as yours, so yes, demand is there, and again it is proven that the same innovations can happen independently from each other. It is good to see that the roleplaying community is experimenting with these things, and with the ideas you are one of the leading ones I think! And even if others came up with the same idea, your video explained it the best for me (for now, I am still researching, so who knows what I come across). Just wanted you to know since you asked in the video if anyone else came up with the idea you too come up with, and the answer is yes. It means nothing wrong, your system still has different ideas and different combination of ideas! So keep up the good work!
Watching now so far I am very invested to see where this goes. I've always seen these "initiative" systems as cumbersome. Weather be the roll for initiative and order it like DND or you have the stages of slower declares 1st then fastest acts first so that the fastest gets an upper hand by being able to see what the slowest is going to do. This is the first time I've heard of dramatic combat, learning is fun.
Yeah, I do like the mechanic where acting first is detrimental because you're revealing your positioning to your enemies. I'm not sure how large a role positioning would play in this particular game, however. It might not be worth having a "declare action" phase follow by an "action phase," but playtesting will have to tell!
as a GM For 40+ years, for RPGs, I never say 'roll for initiative'. as you pointed out during the vid, simply saying those words changes the entire dynamics of the game. going from a story telling format to a tactical format. in my opinion, those are two completely different types of games. before playing, I have a list of each characters Dex bonus. this gives me a loose order for the characters. as any scene unfolds, characters can interact in any number of ways, to include attacks. during a full melee encounter, the play is very fast. because I have a rough character order, I just insert npc's and opponents as appropriate. this allows for a free flow of activities. it also means the players need to pay attention and be ready to act, as they don't have a designated turn order. I simply ask a player to describe the actions of a particular character. anything they want to do is fine and if it's something difficult, then a roll is made (to include any attacks). there is no pausing play or stopping to 'prep for combat'. as characters and others in the scene are offered opportunity to interact, if they are not ready to describe the characters activity, then they get passed and another character or others can advance the scene. this means players need to be ready at all times. I encourage banter and other conversation relevant to the game as these things can be chaotic. it makes for some hectic and crazy gaming, but it's both fun and exhausting. another big aspect, not all combats are fatal. many include running away or escaping. this is great for story telling and having reoccurring encounters with henchmen. hope this gives new GMs a new approach to running RPGs.
Riddle of Steel has an interesting combat system, designed mostly for duels. The two side decides if they wish to attack or defend at the same time, and reveals it together (can be done with cards or dice with separate colors held in closed fist). The thing is that you can only attack if you reveal attack intent, and you can only defend if you reveal defend. If both sides reveal attack, they do at the same time, which can be catastrophic because none of them can defend from the others attack. So they both will probably reveal defend at the first few turns, which is the ideal of two fighters circling each other, trying to figure out the right time to attack. Once one reveals attack and the other defend, they start the exchange and it turns into a regular fight of hitting and blocking.
I really like your initiative system and the decision of who goes first is smart and simple. I’ve been making my own game over the past few years, in between work, school, and the doldrums, and I’ve tinkered around with the initiative system some. You’ve inspired me. Something I’d like to see is how you’ve structured the classes and leveling, or whatever is the equivalent in the game and how they work, how you’ve laid out progression and building of abilities.
Thanks so much, I'm glad I could inspire you! And yes, classes will definitely be a large topic in the future. I might do an introductory video to briefly go over all the classes, and then do a separate video that dives deeper into each one. I might have to do a few other videos first though, to establish mechanics that the classes depend upon. Stay tuned, and keep at it, friend!
As of currently, I am using static initiative. Since it doesn't really matter who goes first after a round or two, only in the first two rounds of combat really. What really matters is relative positions of the combatants in the initiative track. As such, static initiative makes things much simpler for both myself and the players, as the transition from narrative to tactical combat is seamless. To use static initiative, take the initiative bonuses of everyone and write them down, then just go from highest to lowest. No dice rolls necessary, no 'roll for initiative' key phrase to denote that we are now switching our mindset from talking to hitting things. No unnecessary pause while the GM sorts out everyone's order of actions.
I've found the card-based initiative system from Savage Worlds to satisfy both the chaotic element of combat turn order while making round-by-round turn order be fast and exciting. Each round, the GM passes out a card to each PC as well as one card for each enemy group. The turn starts at Ace and ends at Two. For ties, go in reverse suit order. When someone draws the Joker, they get a bonus to their action rolls, damage rolls, and they can choose to go whenever they want. After the round when the Joker is drawn, the GM reshuffles the deck. To represent characters that are quick on their feet, there's the Level-Headed edge, which grants them the ability to redraw a card if they get lower than a 5. There was another edge that granted the ability to draw two cards and pick the better of the two and an improved version that let them draw three cards and pick the best of the three.
The fun with tactical combat is that the narrative can create surprises to the narrative a dramatic combat would not be able to. We all know that one campaign where the players rushed the big bad and killed him first round through lucky crits even though they were way underleveled to defeat him.
I switched over to similar systems awhile ago and I agree. The biggest difference is my players talk to each other more and I like that. And players feel more invested and pay more attention even when it isn't their turn. I currently use "Giffyglyphs Darker Dungeons" it's a massive overhaul of 5e for a more gritty game. I recommend checking out the active initiative system for inspiration within it as it's similar to yours.
Hey, I'll have to check that out, thanks! And yes, I'd love nothing more than to have my players spend more time talking, strategizing, and engaging when combat rolls around. Hopefully this helps make that happen!
Yeah see I would consider that metagaming unless it's in character. It seems weird that you would go for a more difficult overhaul of the game, and then just make it objectively easier to play
This is definitely faster than rolling, but having used this system before for about a dozen sessions, I didn't really notice any more drama or any less friction without initiative, and it makes combats too...predictable? samey? for my taste. You always know when everyone is going to go, which actually makes things more tactical, while robbing the drama of needing to make a tough call when you can't get turns to work perfectly, which made me feel like it was kinda the worst of both worlds. Currently, I break each kind of monster into a different unit and give them evenly spaced initiatives of 5/10/15/20/etc + their initiative modifier, and then let my players either choose to roll (which they always do) or just use 10+initiative (running PF2e). All that being said, though, I haven't played a game that was designed from the ground up to capitalize on group initiative, and could see that adding a ton of fun narrative and drama if the PCs can meaningfully interact with each other in the superturn by layering action orders.
The version of D&D I play has a basic roll 1d10 for initiative (no mods). I run round robin initiative. So I roll and one player rolls initiative. Then which ever side wins, they or I choose which PC/NPC may go first. Then a character from the other side goes, and so on. This allows not only early tactical planning but adaption to battlefield evolution. So for you demo example; After surprise round, if we roll off and I (as GM) win initiative then maybe one of the lizard men blocks the door to attack. The knight can then say, "I want to bash w/my shield and move him back or to the side." which then breaks an opening. then if the hydra comes in to melee w/the knight to attack the next melee can move forward or the first distance attacker in range attacks (player's choice). The next turn, the next player to the right of the previous PC who rolled (I go clock wise) will roll against me to see if a PC unit goes first or an NPC unit. This way may sound boring on paper but it has made some interesting combat rounds in my games.
9:00 Yes fixed initiative has problems, BUT limiting yourself to just one tactic is a losing strategy, ie if the Wizard's magic is so short ranged he can't shoot a Hydra from 8 hexes away, maybe he should carry a ranged weapon that can.
I always used side initiative but resolve actions by pairs of combatants. So, if the heroes win initiative, one of them (they decide) goes first, then the bad guy he attacked. Play proceeds around the room--hero and opponent. If a spell has an area effect, it probably causes everyone to pause, which then requires a new initiative roll.
Everyone goes at the same time. Deadly. Chaotic. Fun. If you have to roll (or it of easy via VTT) then fully blind is the way to go. It's real and scary.
I may have missed a comment but this system makes sense, instead of delaying on their turn the monsters would have used their action to set up their reaction to attack the party members at range as they came through the door. Making the job of the tank extremely necessary as he enters and absorbs the damage followed by the rest of the party. Seems like a good example to me.
The best tactical combat system I've ever played was a home-brewed Zelda R.P.G. I found on the 1D4chan wiki. It had group initiative, where everyone rolled and whichever team had the higher roller went first. What I really love about it though is the action economy. Every round, each character gets three actions, which can either be used on their team's turn to act, or on the opposing team's turn to react to or defend against attacks. This lead to a really interesting dynamic where the team that went first would actually have to play more cautiously so that they could save one or two actions to defend against their enemies. The team that went second, on the other hand, could go all out with whatever they had left from the first team's attack.
"I wanna have both at the same time" Hey, me too! Initiative order determined by number of combatants per side is a fresh take; I enjoyed the action economy justification for it. Another rationale for group initiative over individual init is the silliness that insues when two battle lines charge toward one another in an open field using individual init. Thanks for the video!
The point of an initiative system is that speed is a virtue. It allows you to take advantage of situations and ensures you're not dead before you can be effective. If you remove initiative then speed is only important in the narrow other circumstances allowed in your mechanics, and special ops trigger men react in a fight with the same alacrity as Haiku Authors. Allowing all of one side to go first gives somewhat clever players or GMs the opportunity to focus a lot of damage or effects on a single target and make them irrelevant in the fight, it allows one side to dictate terms on the field, they can arrange a front line of their toughest fighters with support behind them while the second group just deals with the position they start their turn in.
This is just how D&D was played in the 70s and early 80s. A good DM would also have his Monsters and NPCs react in small ways as the Players conducted their moves and attacks, the DM would likewise always listen to Players wishing to react in small ways to the actions of the Monsters/NPCs. Each side took their turn but any reasonable/logical reaction to unfolding events was weighed and ruled on by the DM. The end result is more of a flowing narrative than an I-Go You-Go illogical mess.
I think you're chasing a problem to solve, but your mechanic still leads to the same results as normal initiative while creating others. Examples: Ambush 1 Large Group ambushes, slaughters Small Group, battle over before first round. Ambush 1.1 Large Group ambushes, doesn't slaughter Small Group, setting initiative from there. Ambush 2 Small Group ambushes, doesn't slaughter Large Group, still smallest group so goes again, slaughters Large Group, battle over during first round. Ambush 2.1 Small Group ambushes, doesn't slaughter Large group, is now largest group, setting initiative order from there. With the exception of Ambush 2, the Ambush dictates turn order, not group size. Additionally given the wording it seems possible for a small group to go twice allowing them to slaughter a larger group in the first actual round. Small 1 Small Group retreats, battle over before first round. Small 1.1 Small Group regroups with reinforcements, now larger group while also acted first. Small 1.2 Small Group uses terrain, fights 3v1 thus tactically larger group while also acting first. Small 1.3 Small Group ignores terrain, probably what's intended. Depending on the speed and courage of the group in question, Small 1 and 1.1 could become the norm. While there's little reasons for any group to abandon an advantageous position, so giving an entrenched foe the first move would make dislodging them even more difficult. So, all in all the attempt to give the underdog a fighting chance has backfired the majority of the time, either by giving them too large of an advantage, or simply dying outright to ambush which is still possible despite that being the primary reason for the solution. Now unfortunately your intent for the initiative mechanic won't work so long as you can ambush a foe with more than a single character. After which, whoever goes first will still have the advantage of being able to damage the foe before they can act. Now maybe that's not an issue, after all it works wonders for stealth games, so long as it's not too easy to abuse. Personally, the only fair option for ambushes to work is to limit it to a single character, otherwise Ambush 1 or 2 could become the norm. While initiative wise, the only way to keep the first group from dogpiling and destroying the second is to have them trade off initiative till everyone has gone. Examples: Ambush A: 4 Players, 4 NPCs Players ambush, Player 1 kills NPC 1, ambush ends. Ambush B: 4 NPCs, 4 Players NPCs ambush, NPC 1 kills Player 1, ambush ends. Small A: 3 Players, 4 NPCs Player 1 kills NPC 1, NPC 2 attacks, Player 2 attacks, etc. Small B: 3 NPCs, 4 Players NPC 1 kills Player 1, Player 2 attacks, NPC 2 attacks, etc. Unlike with the Full-Team initiative mechanic, the Trade-Off mechanic still allows the smaller group a chance to fight back, unless of course the group in question is only a single character, then depending on their individual power, you may inadvertently be setting up a stealth puzzle game.
Still super excited about this! Please keep the updates coming! My perspective is super limited, only having found D&D within the past couple of years and hardly played any other TTRPG. I have DM'd a handful of times for brand new players and I really like the idea of taking away things that players have to keep track of. Even in my more experienced games initiative and turn order are always a hassle: "Whose turn is it?", "Wait is it me now?", "Do they go next?", etc. I really like the solution you have since it also doesn't put more on the DM. Just overall less to track and leaves room for tactics and/or role playing. Mechanically I don't foresee any reason this shouldn't be fun or would be unfair to players, esp. since you are designing with it in mind; I'm pumped about it:) I do worry there might be some issues with some players not feeling like they have their own time to shine if a bunch of others quickly start rattling off what they want to do, like in games with a mix of beginner players and experienced players. This could be an easy fix as any DM should be able to notice this and just ask the player(s) being isolated to speak about their goals this turn of combat. Maybe leave a note about this to warn DMs. Also, leaving a bunch of players who are really into tactics to share a turn together, could lead to very very slow turns as they keep trying to optimize their actions/movements/combos. But again, this would just be something to warn a DM about. Maybe extended indecision on player's turns could even have the consequence of that turn being pushed until later factions have gone as this indecision is actually seen in the game from their characters as well. Again, these are super small comments. Overall I really like the idea and it seems to solve what I didn't like about initiative. As far as other content to see, could a faux combat encounter be played out with your rules? Maybe super simplified characters, only 2-3 factions, and possibly playing out a first encounter of a draft campaign starter? Also, just because of the silly name, and literally no other reason, do you have that certain factions get "faction actions"? For example, on their turn the faction of pirates fires one volley of cannon shots from their ship. I always liked Lair Actions in D&D and wanted to see more lol.
Great comment, thanks so much! Yes, I do see the potential for louder players to drown out the quieter ones, which isn't ideal. I've experienced that in certain board games as well, and I'd hate to see one player decide they're the master strategist and tell everyone else what to do. So yeah, I think that should be a prominent section in both the player and GM chapters. As for faction actions, that's a great idea! I admit I hadn't really thought about that, but now I am for sure!
The point of rolling initiative in the first place is to give the enemy a chance to act between the allied turns. Delaying your turn just to fix up the turn order is only silly assuming everyone is already next to eachother in the turn order, but if the enemies' turns end up pairing up the wizard/rogue apart from the fighter and ranger/paladin you're gonna have a different situation. Sure, you can still delay your turn, but you're not just allowing your allies to act before you now, you're allowing the enemies to act before you.
I'd like a hybrid; everyone rolls initiative, but the inits are couched within the team-turns. That way players are less likely to spotlight hog or get caught up being over polite, and you keep the fun of rolling. The team-order should really be context dependant (sneak attacks etc) but you could also go from the highest individual roll (and give/allow advantage on init rolls if you feel generous/they use inspo)
I play an indie ttrpg for One Piece adventures in witch you have to roll initiative and sort the turn order in EVERY. SINGLE. ASAULT. You had to do it this way because there exists mechanics in wich 2 characters with the same initiative could colaborate to make their actions. And I have 6 players. That's 12 units fighting if you don't want to always give the players number advantage. I had to make a gargantuan automated excel sheet with tons of features to make the sorting for it to be even feasible, if you knew only a fraction of my pain...
I think initiative works better in video games where the game auto-sorts and you can see the order at the top of the screen. Especially if you have to do it every round lol
I like it. I might not be able to convince any of my DMs to try it because I'm not proficient in Persuasion, but it doesn't take any more convincing for me to if I ever get there.
This method does not help with the drama of a scene, per say. It helps with keeping the game fun for everyone, it helps with making the game more tactical. It doesn't address how it helps the drama of a scene. The drama of a scene is created by tension and, to a lesser extent, the release of that tension. A hallway where the party is cramped, and the wizard can't use their powerful spell safely, creates tension. The player feels that tension when they complain that don't get to do anything. It might be good to remove these negative sources of tension, as doing so may help the game be more fun to play. However, the dramatic tension of "my character could help, if only they could be in the right place, at the right time," is a classic scene for many stories. Hopefully I don't have to explain that in the scene where 'Frodo could be healed in Rivendell, if only they could get him there in time,' is quality dramatic tension. So...how do you fix this? One way is to let the players decide the order of their initiative, then they could choose to be in a jam in a hallway. In other words, they opt into the extra difficulty of scene, one where the wizard is stuck behind the party. But a lot of players will not, for reasons that you explained in the video.
Great video! Earned a sub. :) I think your version for determining turn order is an awesome fix for positioning problems, and is superior to rolling for initiative as is. However, my concern with the units grouped together for turns is that there is still a high risk of "ganging up" on individual PC's or enemies without them being able to do much. (Standard initiative can have that problem too, of course.) I think a hybrid of this with initiative rolls could be interedting to try. A change my D&D group made was using alternating initiative, and it has been a good balance once everyone is engaged in the combat. Everyone rolls like usual, but tracking PC's and Bad Guys separately. Then we alternate between 'units' (using your term) getting a turn, with the next character within that unit going. (They can choose to wait and reenter the initiative at a later time, but that permanently changes their place in the order, and it gives the other unit another turn.) This ensures that combat maintains a constant back and forth each round, eliminating a lot of the 'swingy' feel the combat momentum can have in D&D. Once all members of a unit have completed their turns, the rest of the round plays out according to the remaining initiative scores. Then start again at the top of the next round. Now, Alternating Initiative won't solve the positioning problems you aptly pointed out. I may try using your rules for the first round to allow the PC's to get into the room, then switch to initiative once the chaos of combat has begun and everyone is acting (almost) simultaneously.
Hey, thanks for the sub! Yes, this is definitely something that might see a fair amount of revision throughout the playtest process. I'll want to try a bunch of different options, and there's a lot that goes into it. I do think that giving the initiative to the smaller units first will help the "ganging up" situation somewhat, in the first round anyway. Certainly doesn't solve the overall problem, though.
- Your example contradicts your rule 2B. The smallest unit acted 2nd. I understand this was not the point of your example, however it can be confusing. - The purpose of initiative is not only to determine who acts first, but also to track if everybody acted during a round (it is especially true with large groups), If you have to spend time to check whether everyone acted or not at the end of the round, then what you have gained at the start is lost at the end, and combat becomes boring (not dramatic). Plus, if you fail to track turn order, being skipped as a player sucks. - On the same page: waiting for your turn sucks. So what happens when your smaller unit of 5 monsters has to fight a PC party of 6? The last PC might have to wait 10 turns before acting, the player will probably loose focus in that case (not dramatic). Likewise, what happens when the larger group ends up being the smallest after everyone took its turn? Is initiative determined again, thus allowing a group to act twice in a row? Sorry for all the questions, I really enjoy your take on initiative, I'm just trying to help. EDIT: missing words and please check my answer to your first game design journal if you have time. Thank you :).
Have you considered looking at Fung Shui? The game mechanic (combat, story, etc.), is designed to mimic Hong Kong action cinema (Kill Bill, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, *any* Jackie Chan or Bruce Lee film...). It's simple, straightforward and intended to be fast-paced, dramatic and, most importantly, cool and fun.
I've been looking into alternative initiative systems myself, both to homebrew in D&D as well as to add to my own system. Your idea is interesting. But I disagree that the example you gave makes the current D&D initiative system look bad. On the contrary, it's a great example of how terrain influences the tactics of a combat. The attackers are in a jam and have to try and scoot or attack around their allies, which makes life difficult for them - that's the exact reason a defender might build a corridor like that, a choke point. Because it's easier to defend. A party entering such a corridor would then know that their potentially high initiatives won't guarantee that they get to attack, which creates tactical decisions even before combat starts; a heavily armoured fighter might be able to take the most hits, but would likely be lower in the turn order. So do they place them at the front or not? Decisions decisions. A traffic jam in this instance creates an interesting scenario that adds tension. If you absolutely want to eliminate useless initiative rolls, you _could_ only let the characters who could actually do something on their turns roll and let each subsequent character roll the moment they can do something. Except, of course, that their are often plenty of things a character can do, even if they can't move or attack, such as casting spells (to buff, debuff, control, etc.) or using class features. So it's best to just let everybody roll and for the people who then can't act just say there's nothing they can do that round. High initiative was then an advantage the terrain removed from them. If the players and GM dislike the types of combats choke points create, the GM should just stop adding them.
Turn-based tactical videogames like Fire Emblem do it like this and it works really well. It really does feel tactical compared to the DnD I've played in the past
So in my game a lot of actions resolve around the wieght the characters carry, so does the Initiative too. If you carry a lot of armour and heavy weapons you move and react slower. If the players encounter a Pack of very light enemies, the enemies most probebly automaticly go first and the players have to make sure they don't get outmanouvert.
Videogames but Fire emblem uses a team turn structure. You can still mob down individual units. Triangle stratagy uses an initiative structure based on unit stats. Initiative does not need to be rolled and if rooted in a stat structure could be planed around.
I have been running a play by post, where combat rounds happen in order of whoever has the time to comment first. Instead of "Roll for initiative", it's "Round One - Fight!" Which work's pretty good, though I might need to come up with something else if I where to stream or something.
I've been using a similar initiative system for a while now. I got the original inspiration from Mansions of Madness. Instead of allowing the outnumbered party to go first, I just have a single die (no modifiers) roll off. Not because I think it's better than your method, but simply because I never considered not rolling at all. I probably won't change to granting the outnumbered party first initiative, mostly due to the fact that I don't always want my players to know exactly how many opponents they are facing. To me the unknown is a large part of the dramatic sense of danger, and knowing you are outnumbered (or vice-versa) totally destroys that immersion. Plus you still get to say, "Roll for initiative!" You did encourage me to think of other ways I might consider first initiative though. Maybe using a point of inspiration immediately grants it to the players... 🤔 I don't know, but it is something to consider.
One of the simplest systems I've seen is ICRPG which allows players to go first (unless there's a reason they wouldn't like being ambushed) and announce what they're doing clockwise around the table. You could make that more dynamic by seating people around a table in the order of how quick they are...quickest first. It's the same in EZD6 which has been live playtested to a huge degree with the object of making combat fun. Ultimately though, you point out a problem with many RPGs...that the mechanics result in combat being the same thing over and over with a lot of dice rolling, less role playing, less descriptions and less imaginative, exciting, fun actions. If you think about what happens in movie combat there's usually improvised weapons, improvised defense (using a book from the bookshelf or a candlestick etc), heroic moves like jumping off things, throwing objects from the room, getting thrown through objects, ducking under tables to avoid getting hit etc. etc. etc. Complex rules that try to be realistic hinder that type of combat for a simple reason...good fiction is not realistic...it's dramatic and exciting and usually has a person or a group of underdogs overcoming overwhelming odds by pulling together to do something remarkable and unexpected. Rolling for initiative is BORING compared to working out the cool, exciting things party members might say and do and the cool, frightening things their opponents might say and do in an encounter and running with that. Most RPG combat rules are a strait jacket that slows down combat, restricts what the players can do and results in players and their opponents acting in predictable ways that aren't all that interesting once you've been in a dozen combat scenarios. And ultimately combat rules in most systems just increase or decrease the chance of hitting by increments of 5% then increase or decrease the chance of damage done. For a lot of messing around with initiative, dice rolls, adds etc. you're not adding much fun and you're eating up time that could be spent role playing. Perhaps think outside the miniature rules box that most RPG combat derives from and come up with something unique, cool and fun to play that is different.
This is very interesting. It feels like the difference between FFT and Tactics Ogre. I personally would just create a simple initiative system and use your unit system to make things easy and fun. I'm thinking all units start with 10 Speed and any bonuses to initiative (from spells, items, and ability mods, etc.) are added up for the entire unit and any negatives to Speed would take away from it, so a unit can have less than 10. So let's look at how we can get a unit of PCs with collectively 17 Speed (lets' say 4 PCs, A has +2 Speed from Dex mod, B has +1 from gear, C has +1 from a spell effect and D has +3 from gear and Dex mod) Now we do the same for the enemy unit. Then we look to see if the enemy has a higher speed score than the PCs. If the PCs have 17 and the enemies have 15, then the PCs go 1st collectively as a unit. I really like this idea and wanna try it now. I would hate to take away certain characters' ability to go 1st in a combat that specifically built that way, such an Assassin or a Gloomstalker Ranger.
Nice. I already play games with simplified initiative, but I like the suggestions of having the smaller group go first or having players go in the order that makes most sense.
Rolling for initiative has kind of sucked for pacing. I have tried with some success, where we set out a bunch of combat rolls (a set of six prerolled dice rolls we can just burn). We automatically have the roll selected for initiative. I've never had anyone agree with me, but I feel the order should be simpler, just agree who will always lead the attack and have a set order, and the side the wins the initiative roll goes first (players vs. DM). An idea I'd like to try is a Team Move. So you're in a campaign End of Act 1 or in the middle of Act 2 and the party has overcome a challenge and its brought them closer together. The party is rewarded with Team Move. In any encounter the party gets to do a team move. A Team Move being where each party member gets to take 1 action, all the actions happen at the same time, they are not rolled sequentially. Yes, that means the party now has OP forever initiative, but it is an escalation, so the challenges also escalate.
I feel like initiative is one of the first game systems that tables will house rule. Imo, a game system should just show the players how to use the game dice to determine initiative in case the players want dice to be involved. It can then make suggestions about initiative without using dice, but honestly if the table doesn't want to use diced to do initiative then their initiative system will work in any system and they probably won't take the advice of the rulebook. they'll probably just do what they've always done.
I’m imagining an ability/perk something along the lines of “Lone Wolf” where a character counts as their own unit and by virtue of this almost always goes first. Sounds really fitting for a rogue type character
Great idea with the team initiative. The only question is which initiative modifier to use. Monsters typically have a leader, but the PCs don’t always have an obvious leader. In that case I would probably opt to let the “initiative character” roll. With the team initiative system I would likely change the Improved Initiative feat (pf1) so that the character with it does not count towards team size.
The example seems to speak more to not using narrow corridors than anything else! The smaller team is not the underdog, the NPCs are, they lose a lot. Team initiative is fine - it's how D&D started after all. I did enjoy the Edge of Empire system where the players generate initiative slots but any player could use them. This is less good for the other side where it puts pressure onto DMs. I'd maybe have fast players - bad guys - slow players. (for my ideal - your system is fine) I do appreciate the extra trickery players can use when group initiative is used, not sure about splitting character actions rather than just teams; happens fine in lots of CRPGs but then it's all my brain and my time if the turn starts to get painfully long. On the original point I always think of myself as a tactical gamer but really PCs win 99% of the time in RPGs so it's kinda chimerical. I guess it's how little fudging the DM has to apply... I'm not sure I have had satisfactory dramatic combat in another system. Drama in tactical fights can be emergent and is why sport is more dramatic than theatre as I used to tell an actress friend. I think there is another type of combat "cinematic" where you are doing things that are cool not effective. Feng Shui classically aims for this but so do some Supers games and many other games can be played like this especially if you are the comic relief character (Brother in the Mummy, kid in Indiana Jones). There's also cathartic, beating up bad guys after a long day at work.
I use side based initiative, similar to this. However, I decide which side goes first based strictly on the narrative. And if there is no obvious reason why one team should go first, the players' team goes first.
I only rarely ever been in a game that used tactical battlemaps. Most groups I played with roll for initiative, but everything is just words and descriptions. That makes it a bit harder on the GM, since they would ahve to describe all the possible tactical details in the combat area, rather than just put down a map with props, but if a player wants to use a certain gambit, they can just ask if a certain feature or item is present in the room, like is there a table or barrel to jump onto to get a clear shot from higher ground. This avoids the idea that combat is static just because the figures on the battle map are not moving. In D&D there is a spell that affects a specificed area of 5x5feet, one square, causing anybody who steps into that area to slip and fall (Dex save). with a battle map, one can claim and pretend that one can effectively fight by standing next to the affected area and whailing onto the enemy who keeps falling due to the oil slick. Realistically, however, if you are in melee with somebody in that field, you are affected just as much since there is a lot of movement in the 10 second combat round. Remove the battle map and figurines, and suddenly you ahve to be careful not to get trapped in your party mage's spells
I've been developing a game system for a while now, and this video was excellent. we arrived at the same conclusion, separating the combats into general "teams" and letting people act in any way on those teams. For my little twist, the system I'm making has the choice between being aggressive or defensive also matter a lot to a players survivability, with the same action type for attacking being used for blocking, dodging, or resisting/countering magic as well. It lets players control the flow of combat and be motivated to focus on assisting their teammates more than just killing the enemies, and the heroics of saving a team member help lend the combat some narrative drama too.
One problem that may arise is that if you have a child as a player character and the rest of the player characters are adults usually the child will insist on going first and if they don't they have a hissy fit.
Interesting, I also agree that in real life you're not forced into a turn order, you observe the battlefield and choose a moment to act. Since my game relies on an app, I can just auto roll initiative every round without slowing the game down, so asking the players to stop and decide what turn order they are going in would actually be slower. Most of the problems you posed have to do with movement, and my game is theater of the mind only, so it is less of an issue. I was thinking of a similar problem with DnD recently, imagine you were dashing through the halls of a dungeon, and you just so happen to end your dash in front of an open door of a room full of 100 goblins with crossbows... Now, despite the fact that you are running at full speed and the Goblins would realistically have about a tenth of a second to react, they all get to shoot you... So sometimes movement in a turn-based game can actually make things _less_ realistic, when the only reason they are there is to make things more realistic. Most of the time, it is just a pain to have to remember the ranges of weapons and spells and sometimes spending your entire turn only moving because you are too far away to do anything, it doesn't make the game more fun and only slightly more realistic, imo.
I certainly agree, though I admit I don't have a lot of experience with theater of the mind combat. I typically use it for small encounters where the terrain doesn't really matter (e.g. the party encounters a single guard in the hallway), but for anything else I have a hard time visualizing positioning of characters without aid. And auto-rolling initiative is certainly a blessing. Or the GM can roll everyone's initiative beforehand, to save time at the table. So that certainly helps.
@@elementalyarn Oh totally, and I mean DnD beyond lets you auto roll initiative, but like I said there is a lot more DnD beyond could do for players that it doesn't do for some reason, it could go much further to make our lives more convenient. And I very much agree I also like visual aids, except that problem only arises when you are playing a game that involves distance and position in every spell and weapon. If "distance" and "position" don't exist in your game, you never have to worry about it. In my game, for example, speed is just an ability, when you melee attack someone with equal or higher speed than you, you have to pass a speed check against their passive speed in addition to the normal attack roll. You skip this speed check if the target is someone that melee attacked you after your last turn or you have higher speed than the target. Obviously ranged attacks also skip the speed check. The exact positioning and all that can be done with roleplay. Think of it like playing Darkest Dungeon, or Raid Shadow Legends with a GM mode, you are all just basically standing in a room together taking turns attacking one another. DnD, for instance, wasn't designed for that so it can feel unfair and illogical when you do theater of the mind combat with it.
So... what happens if your players are all druids and the battle starts as a 15v4 and on turn 1, one of the druids casts Entangle and the other three all summon 8 creatures and then run for cover? Now the battle is a 24+4 vs 15 but with the higher activating side always getting first initiative.
The last effort to rid myself of the "call for initiative" drama drop was last session. Before the game began, that greeting period, I told the players to roll for initiative 5 times, keeping an A-E listing. Then I explained, I would choose the one that made sense for the combat or action at hand. It worked well they felt it was their rolls, but I never had to have them break the wall. I use DnDBeyond encounter creator, insert their rolls and then order my Monsters for the scenario. It does the damage math, I call for action. It worked well. I do groupings as well. So player 1,2,3, monsters group 1, players 4,5, monster group 2, players 6 and 7. They, the PC, like the dispersion and not total grouping. It means some player action always is imminent.
This sounds a lot like side initiative which is an initiative variant on p 270 in the DMG. You have each side roll a d20 flat. The side with the Highest roll goes first. Everyone on that side say what they will do in whatever order they want. Dungeon master arjudicates and narrates what happens. Then the next side goes. Round over. I see this working very well in smaller groups. 2-4 players. Any more it could become a chore to remember what everyone is doing
I can see a lot of potential in this. My players struggle to pay attention when it isn't their turn and turning their turns into a larger team turn, where anyone can do anything at any time may make them more involved. It could also run into issues where people are waiting for someone else to do something for so long that nobody does anything. Have you run into this before and how did you solve it? I will try to have them roll initiative anyway, that way IF nobody takes an action it will default to whoever is highest that has actions left. We play Pathfinder 2E so having people just mark off actions as they use them is pretty straightforward. For the enemy side/s, do you play them in a cluster of actions or do you tend to still play them each individual at a time? I may still end up running them as normal with their own initiatives, or maybe determine the order in advance for dramatic effect (let minions act at the start of the enemy turn and end with the strongest of the group). The only other thing that I can think of that might be a problem, is the party would have to wait through ALL enemy turns before acting/adjusting. Positioning or lucky critical hits without a player turn in between to either move to block, heal, etc. could be overwhelming. Granted this is part of the tactical planning to not leave yourself exposed but have you ever run into issues like this?
Several Considerations: Gaining and maintaining momentum in a combat is key. Is not both the dramatic tension and interesting combat challenges, about reconciling this momentum? Some other considerations, would involve not drifting into a table that feels the GM is an adversary, in determining Groups/units.... Where as the dice initiative is a neutral arbitrator at the table. Seems your, (all actually), initiative system would seriously need a solid surprise and contextual moral determination system. In your combat example, in determining group size, are you are counting actors able and willing to act/react over time as the battle unfolds....? round for round. Avoiding crunch is.....
Rolling for initiative is one of those things that can be done away with, but there are some big problems that have to be addressed after doing so. The first problem is that it's much harder for a DM to work with. Most DMs are average, and trying to implement a system that subverts rules for narrative is difficult. I've tried playing without initiative and it fails whenever there is varying experience levels among players, because newer players have difficulty applying what their character can do in combat to out of combat scenarios. Without the explicit distinction between combat and not combat new players can feel lost. DMs without initiative have to plan encounters to be dramatic in some way and players may feel like they should never start a fight without the drama placed by the DM. The second problem is that making a fast pace combat requires staggered enemy initiative, if the DM plays the monsters for too long, players get bored. A good DM should strive for sub 1 minute monster turns. Narrative in DnD is very strange, because it's a cooperative story builder in collaboration between the players and DM. Players should feel like they have the ability to control the direction of the campaign, railroading is okay when everyone knows that's what's happening and wants to follow a storyline.
Interesting idea. I have more of a rolling initiative system that works pretty well, but this is interesting too. It's always good to find ways to speed up play
One thing I think I might try to do to deal with inopportune initiative order is to add the "Delay" action from Pathfinder 2.0. when you Delay, any effects that happen at the start or end of your turn happen immediately, and you then can take your turn at any time before it gets back to your turn. When you take your turn, that is your new initiative. Also, I might look into incorporating Savage Worlds initiative feature, where it changes every turn by everyone pulling a card from a deck.
Very nice system and not one I have seen much like before so always helpfull. I am trying out a similar thing with the party inititive being decided by a total that can increas based on characters skill and abuilities such as a leader giving the group a bonus as someone is organizing them. I really like the backwords system that Cogent uses for inititive ware the the people who act first state what they are doing last so that they can react to what others do, though it can be confusing to get use to.
Yes, I love systems like that, where "acting first" is actually detrimental. I think one of the best systems I've seen for that is in the starship combat in Starfinder, actually. The slower ships have to move first, which allows their opponents to maneuver based on that choice. Then everyone shoots at once after the movement phase is completed. It's a little tricky to figure out, and it can be very time-consuming. But ultimately very tactical in my opinion.
My prolem is if you whole party goes before the baddies get to go then more often then not that's pretty much the end of combat. especially fi they can decide who goes in what order to maximise their damage... same can be said if all your monster go at once they coudol easily take out one or more character before your PCs can even respeond
I started developing a rpg of my own a while ago, but have been stuck on deciding things like this. I've wanted to mix the two, but couldn't figure out how. My problem is that team based initiative although less complicated for a DM, is more complicated for the players. Getting players to agree on who goes first would be a nightmare. It would hopefully eliminate some of disinterest players tend to have during other players turns, but it might make combat longer if you have a group of selfish players. I know not all players are selfish, but the same problem arises in a well coordinated group. If you're group is privy to optimizing combat it may take a while for them to come up with an optimal strategy, and that would halt combat as well. Idk anymore. . .
I’ve never understood why monsters just stand there in the middle of rooms, waiting for some adventurers to waltz in. At the very least wouldn’t the lizard men take positions at the door, hiding and waiting to strike as soon as someone steps through?
Stumbled into your video and I upvote the idea of a discord server; I would love to hop in and discuss game design with folks. What are your thoughts on taking actions when it isn't your turn? Example: In Magic the Gathering I can leave some mana open to be able to play cards on other peoples turns. Conversely, there is tension when another player does the same to me "What cards might they be holding? Will they be able to interfere with my plans?" Just the possibility heightens the experience, even if they ultimately didn't have anything to play at all.
There would be a few things you could have done in DnD 5e with that scenario, but it was an interesting look at the whole initiative check system. There have been a few times where I've rolled high on initiative, and then immediately had no idea on what I should do. So I've definitely been there
I'm not convinced that you don't just hate 5ft corridors. Also how do you deal with players that refuse to be part of the party in order to be the smallest unit
I wonder if you could make initiative a check where you group the PCs into the units based on a broader category such as rolls 5-10, 11-15. That way you could still breakup various groups' actions into units like your system and allow for more dramatic play, but prevent "team fire" scenarios, ie all units hit one enemy unit destroying them instantly nearly unanswered. Which I think is an easily exploitable risk with your system. You also risk undermining stakes if groups move in static simultaneous turns. Specifically when there's a mcguffin the players need, this type of initiative would me PCs could all bumrush it. I do think GMs need to make calls on when and where certain systems need to be used. But most of my DnD experience comes from watching actual play, and the better DMs know when to bend the rules on how PC turn interaction works. And especially when PC initiatives are closer there is less reason to be strict since yes, it's silly for them not to be able to interact simultaneously at times. But also I think initiatives add more drama than you acknowledge here, and that's the "race" feeling of initiative. Where small incremental shifts in combat can have this "we won by a hair" feeling. But even more than that separating initiatives allows for more reactive gameplay when the tide turns in an unexpected way. Such as when a player takes a lot of damage, heals need to be applied sometimes in between enemy turns so heavy hits can't completely end a character. I just worry how much broad team based turns can transform turns into an unwealdly tank where you have to anticipate unexpected shifts. I wonder how much this would push characters into conservative plays when its harder to correct mistakes since teams move at once, which to me sounds less fun.
Definitely have the gears spinning in my head as a DM- thanks! I think the biggest design issue that comes to mind for this is that depending on the system (I play 5E) - having an entire force act before another can really offset the balance of the battle. All my PC's going before my NPC's can really swing the battle in their favour (or the other way around!) Have you considered using your system, but instead working in an "activation" system? That is to say, doing it exactly as you propose- but instead having members of each side "activate" to go one by one. That way, the players can still strategize which order they want to go in, but have to contend with the flow of battle as enemies go after each player. Probably easier to group enemies in that style- so the "Goblin archers" all activate at the same time, but it's something I'm now considering for my own campaign!
Hmm, I don’t know what system you’re building, but if it’s like 5E you’re running the risk of the monsters getting steamrolled if you do it this way. From my experience and what I’ve seen anecdotally (still varies by table), the enemies outnumber the PC’s in most combats. This is to balance the action economy. Here’s the problem, if every enemy goes after every PC, the PCs get a huge advantage. They get to drop all of their crowd control in the best spots and possibly take several of the minions out of the fight. This severely tilts the encounter balance in favor of the players. The converse is also true. A small group of strong enemies might be able to knock out a player before they have a chance to act. Now these problems exist in the current 5e rules - we’ve all seen it happen - but these alpha strike scenarios are much less likely to happen. Most often the initiative order is mixed up enough to prevent one side from winning before the combat has even begun.
very brilliant, mostly the underdog part, i have some question: 1 - does initiative order change after a units suffer any loss? 2 - imagine i want to use it in D&D 5e, what can i do do balance high dex and mostly talents and class feat that work for initiative?
I have a question. Long intro to it so here goes. In my game I have 2 player Characters, at most 4 NPC allies. So when combat begins, should I have the Players and NPCs be two different "squads", or should I have the NPCs and players be all one "squad"?
I think that this system sounds interesting and unique in theory. But I'm having a hard time understanding how the players will decide who does their turn first. I can see this becoming an issue when you have players that contrast each other in how talkative they are. For example, Joe and Sue are very talkative and make their thoughts known often, but Sally and Mike are typically quite people. In this party style, I can see the quiet ones going last the majority of the time within their unit. I really like this idea, I just see there always being a need for some form of initiative.
If they're all smart players, which judging by their names and one dimensional personality descriptions, I assume they are. They will quickly learn ideal tactics for dealing with different types of foes, and utilize the flexibility of this system to take advantage of any given encounter.
I used this system in the game which i have designed, and do you know what feedback I have received? ...They said: initiative should be rolled, because it is too stressing for players to decide the turn order, and they would just argue about who should go first, and forget who had their turn already... I still could not process this feedback. They were basically saying that it is too stressing to make a decision, in a game which is about decision making.
I do have to ask if having a grid is even that great of a thing. A lot of games do fine without, so maybe some of these problems are incurring because of needles simulation.
Geezer here.... Stopped, quit with no regrets. Back in 3.5, I decided I would play. But not DM. Nope, will run a character under about any ruleset, not Dming d&d again. I use my homebrew, not everyone's cup of tea. We do not roll initiative, rounds are not 6 seconds. It works great, at least at my table. Gaming on.
Weird... In my experience players that likes narrative tends to lean more towards tactical, because for them combat isn't part of the roleplay... its just mini game to solve the conflict. While imersive players tend to roleplay through combat because to them that's what roleplaying is all about.
Right but what happens when the team/unit is competent? If everyone takes their turn together that's it, probably encounter over right there after one turn. You're still taking the exact same amount of turns, they aren't happening synchronously, so should take the same amount of time. What actually makes this faster? You cut out a single die roll from the players for what?
The title contains "dramatic" and you mention that your combat is both, tactical and dramatic, but then you talk the whole video just about the tactical side, but the dramatic side feels not really what I expect to be addressed under that term. In the end your turn order is still just tactical and has no drama considerations, so no wonder you think you can do both, when in the end you simply label some aspects as dramatic which still are not really about drama. Dramatic Initiative consideration would be for example who has the most to lose (or with the name of your project, maybe who has the most to gain should be more relevant here) or otherwise include what is at stake into the game mechanics, then you would have dramatic considerations.
Fair point! You are of course correct, the focus of this video is more on the tactical side of things. I guess one of the main points about dramatic combat here is that the transition from "free play" to "combat" is more seamless than it might otherwise be, so you can maintain the momentum of the moment. That said, I did mostly talk tactics here, so that's on me, and it's what I get for trying to go scriptless, haha. I'll try and do better next time!
Not a fan. Side based initiative often results in a single opponent going down before they can do anything. Even when going second, focus fire can take down a target without the other side having any way to intervene. My solution is phased intiative. Combat has 4 phases: blitz, fast, slow, and last. Your action determines your phase. The blitz phase will have one player go, then on enemy and keep on alternating. Repeat for each phase. It is mostly stolen from the Battletech game.
This is awful, just awful. First you make characters less unique. You cant be sneaky guy with high reflexes, no matter how quick or slow you are you are always at the same speed as everybody else. Second, this type of initiative is commonly use in board and video games. And in most of the cases it devolve into "focus all you troops to kill imminent danger before it gets to you". Fire Emblem games use this style of combat rounds. To be fair it's not a bad design but it even get further from "dramatic" battle than normal turn order and become SWAT simulator. Third, lets say party of 4 enter dungeon, thief go ahead to scout, bad luck he was spotted by 3 monsters. Now he can't do anything, just watch as every monster focus on him and shred him to pieces before he is even able to react. Even in normal situation you are always at risk that one character will get his ass kicked when every monster jumps on him, and no one will be able to anything before every single enemy get to hit him. Forth, it's eliminate many of dramatic or difficult situations. You were running from monster, you are fast, first in round, you can escape any time, but this god damn, slow ass, paladin lagging behind, being last in turn order, he will be grappled and turn into paste. But maybe, just maybe he will get lucky enough to avoid every attack and get away safely. Will you stay or will you run? Fifth, if it takes you 10 min to do simple math like 17+4 and figure it out if 21 is indeed a greater number than 5, than it is not a problem with the game. I played and GMed, online and IRL for years, and it'd never take more than 20s tops.
As has been pointed out, I didn't demonstrate my initiative system as well as I could have. I'll try to do better in the future, probably by scripting out my videos more thoroughly. For now, I might make an appendix to this video, using the other example that I'd made, but had cut for time. I think it better demonstrates what I'm talking about.
One commenter asked whether the monsters could have used their turn to take a defensive action, and they were correct, that's exactly what I should have done in this example. Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts and recommendations, you're the best!
I'm sorry, but the example you used is possibly the worst example you could have chosen to try and prove the merits of your own system. It doesn't sound like a bad system, but the way you've structured the environment and where the party is placed is what's causing the problem, not initiative. See, you've gotten them trapped in a 5-foot hallway with no means of maneuvering around each othet, creating a traffic jam. If the monsters go before the players, they will approach the hallway and create another traffic jam at the exit so the party cannot move and the monsters cannot all participate. The only solution, then, is to allow the party to go first so they can untangle themselves. The issue is that, by the rules of your system, the smaller group goes first. With four party members and three monsters, the monsters would always go first and create a worse traffic jam, but you ignored the rules of your own system to allow the players to go first so they could untangle the jam and make your system look good. The example clearly does not work because you are not addressing the actual problem here, which is map design.
It's always great for designers to hear feedback.
I felt like the party gets initiative because the monster group may not yet be aware of the players so ambush goes first.
Also, I have run styles where dungeon was laid out as we play or I wanted to reveal the boss room suddenly, so the players did not prepare for it and were in a line like the example right before the doorway.
Hmm, that is a bit unfortunate. I'm increasingly thinking I should have used the other example I prepared. I think it might have been a better demonstration, but I cut it for time.
In the future, I'll try not to skew the perspective on my material as I've done here. My intention with this series is to create an open conversation about game design, and that doesn't really work if I smudge the flaws and highlight the good parts. So thank you for your feedback! This is the kind of feedback that allows me to grow as a creator, which I appreciate.
If I made an appendix video to this one, would that be valuable, do you think?
@@elementalyarn In addition to the upper comment, hallways and chokepoints naturally produce the sort of mobility and access restriction that showed up in this example and is actually a basic and primary terrain strategy in real world conflict. That chokepoint limited the number of enemies who could attack the players with the tank up front. While it prevented the rogue from engaging in melee, otherwise, it was probably to the players' advantage. Rather than preventing tactics, using the terrain in this manner is tactics. Players rarely understand how to set up or capitalize on such conditions, though.
Came here to say the same. Your system does not seem bad at all (I actually really believe it can be cool), but the example makes it awful, because the first thing that you say is "in this situation, the monsters act first....and because of the scenario, they delay their turns and go second", which is something you yourself accused of being sort of pointless in the beginning of the video.
@@elementalyarn actually I think the example you used is a good one (though I'd love to see the other example too), but with the caveat that in this case, despite having the smaller force, the monster unit would choose to hold its turn or skip a turn for terrain reasons. As you explained, in normal D&D with initiative, you could end up with several of the characters getting good rolls but skipping because they are stuck. Which sucks. In your system, there is simply players Vs monsters, so it is not such a big deal for either players or monsters to choose to skip or hold their turn. After just one single turn, the order no longer matters, it is simply back and forth, and everyone is in a good position.
So ordinarily, it would make sense both narratively and gamewise for the small force to go first. But in this particular terrain situation it makes sense for the smaller monster force to hold their attacks. And, as the monsters are controlled by the GM, in any encounter it is no big deal for the GM to decide "in this situation, the monsters get to surprise you and go first" or "in this particular situation, the monsters are going to wait where they are at let you come to them".
Could even implement some kind of "guard mode" where players or enemies can take a defensive posture and get a bonus to dodging attacks. So the enemies choose to skip their turn, the players get to attack them first, but the players' first attacks are at a disadvantage. So the monsters choosing to stay put makes tactical sense for them.
This definitely will help combat move along faster and keep everyone interested and involved, instead of waiting for the current players turn to be over because they are thinking or figuring out what to do in the moment, it's less of "who's turn is it? or "who goes next?" and more of "it's us VS them" and makes teamwork feel more fluid.
I’ve drifted towards this sort of system over the past few years. It requires a lot of trust from my players but combat often “makes sense “ now.
On other occasions, I have everyone roll for initiative as a party, then they can decide who takes which number. It makes for an enjoyable combat. So the rogue can get a high score but give it to the fighter.
A very good solution! I think one of the new One D&D feats actually provides that ability. I think it's not ideal to lock what is, in my opinion, an essential fix behind a feat tax, but at leas they realize there's some room for improvement there.
@@elementalyarn I use a simultaneous missiles, magic, melee system where the weapons with the longest reach goes first with no initiative roll at all. This is amazingly FAST, it's tactical, logical, dynamic, and actually makes weapon choices important. One round bleeds into another, and it's something that makes players think about what their back up weapons are going to be. This was largely inspired by watching HEMA (Historic European Martial Arts) experiments where they test spear vs. long sword and what a reach advantage a spear has.
Replacing initiative experiment:
New Combat Order of attacks.
1. Initial missile attacks: bows and crossbows, then thrown weapons such as spears, hand axes, daggers, etc.
2. Magic: Wands, staves, rods, rings and other items with stored spells go first, then cast spells, and finally spells read off scrolls or straight out of spell books
3. Melee & middle missile attacks: Weapons with the longest reach will go first-This order will repeat for character with multiple attacks unless circumstances dictate otherwise-for instance the party is in a very tight press and long weapons are too unwieldy.
• Pole weapons that are 8+ ft. (pikes excluded for obvious reasons)
• Long weapons: Two handed swords, great axes (Dane axes), pole axes, 6’ spears, quarter staff, etc.
• Medium weapons: Bastard swords, long swords, maces, any one-handed weapon between three and four feet long.
• Short weapons: Short swords, clubs, daggers, iron spikes, rocks, shield punches, etc.
and finally, claws, fists, grappling attacks, etc.
4. End of round missile fire: bows and crossbows, then thrown weapons such as spears, hand axes, daggers, etc.
I'll never call for another initiative roll again.
Something to consider for your system as well---the large group vs small group dynamic. You have really touched on something that's very true, how a smaller group can often react to a situation faster than a larger group, but this depends training and how long a group of people have been working together. One of my players is a firefighter and many moons ago I was in the army. Decisions cease to be decisions when you just know what the person to the left and right of you is going to do in any given situation. Your volleyball example is a good one for people who haven't been playing together long---for people who have been on a team together for a while, however, they would have a system to deal with that situation.
In D&D context, one tweak you might want to make to reflect this---if 50% of the party or more has been adventuring together for at least two levels (you might use game chapters if you're not using a level system), reduce the party size by one person. So let's say you start out with a party of six people who by the time they reach 4th level, only four of those original characters have survived. This is still over 50% of the overall party size, so they would act and react to situations as though they only had five characters instead of six. New characters will wind up fitting in and filling out gaps pretty quickly as they see and learn how the team works together. At seventh level, this number might drop to 4, and tenth level, three characters. And place a rule that teamwork can't reduce further than half the party size.
It's an intangible factor that has tangible results, and one I suspect your players will appreciate.
While I do appreciate the simplicity, I'm not sure that determining group initiative by group size isn't a little dangerous in terms of its knock-on effects. Simply having the smaller group go first (aside from feeling increasingly arbitrary the larger the groups get) potentially encourages maladaptive behaviour among the party. In particular, friendly NPCs that tag along for an adventure become a liability because they make the party larger and increase the chance that enemies will be able to act first. If players get wise to this, they might start trying to avoid having anyone join the PCs whenever combat looks likely, which is totally counterintuitive tactically and narratively as well as taking tools out of the GM's arsenal.
Like it. Super easy and intuitive. Roll for Perception to avoid ambush... then have at it.
The coolest initiative system i've see is "Popcorn" initiative, take your turn and then choose who goes next that hasn't gone this turn! I saw it used in Power Rangers HyperForce!
Shadow of the Demon Lord also has a great initiative system, You choose Quick(1 action) or Slow (2 actions) and quick PC's goes first, then quick NPC's, then slow PC's and then slow NPC's!
I play Popcorn (or "elective order") initiative almost exclusively in my Fate games now. It is actually pretty awesome.
I think this would combine nicely with a Big Boss that gets multiple turns of some kind. I know D&D has legendary actions, but I would just give them N turns and split them evenly (say, if it´s fighting 6 players, maybe it always goes after every 2 PCs have acted, so it gets 3 turns per round).
I am currently studying TTRPG systems, not every single one of course (there are tons of them), but the ones I encountered, even the very new and "revolutionary" systems, none of them felt like that they really get combat right, and I did not know why. Most of them have a lot of good ideas and systems for non-combat gameplay, but I felt that none of them tackled combat quiet right. They simplified or complicated it too much, it felt unrealistic, gamey or just boring altogether. After this video it just clicked (at least for me) that initiative were the "elephant in the room" all along. You are really onto something, I will check your game and will see where it goes, but bravo sir, I am impressed with such an easy solution most game developers did not even think about (myself included). Not only you sped up the boring parts, but encouraged teamplay with this! It may not be everyones cup of tea, but I like it very much, thank you! Keep up the good work!
Thank you so much, I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way!
And hey, if you want to check out the playtest document, it's live as of yesterday! Check the description of my latest video to download it and join our Discors server!
@@elementalyarn I watched that video before this one, but wanted to check every single one and felt like the combat system is the most revolutionary from all of the ideas, so I left the comment here, instead of that video, just to praise this particular part. Will download the document soon and check it out!
@@elementalyarn Since then I come across similar initiative systems as yours, so yes, demand is there, and again it is proven that the same innovations can happen independently from each other. It is good to see that the roleplaying community is experimenting with these things, and with the ideas you are one of the leading ones I think! And even if others came up with the same idea, your video explained it the best for me (for now, I am still researching, so who knows what I come across).
Just wanted you to know since you asked in the video if anyone else came up with the idea you too come up with, and the answer is yes. It means nothing wrong, your system still has different ideas and different combination of ideas! So keep up the good work!
Watching now so far I am very invested to see where this goes. I've always seen these "initiative" systems as cumbersome. Weather be the roll for initiative and order it like DND or you have the stages of slower declares 1st then fastest acts first so that the fastest gets an upper hand by being able to see what the slowest is going to do.
This is the first time I've heard of dramatic combat, learning is fun.
Yeah, I do like the mechanic where acting first is detrimental because you're revealing your positioning to your enemies. I'm not sure how large a role positioning would play in this particular game, however. It might not be worth having a "declare action" phase follow by an "action phase," but playtesting will have to tell!
as a GM For 40+ years, for RPGs, I never say 'roll for initiative'. as you pointed out during the vid, simply saying those words changes the entire dynamics of the game. going from a story telling format to a tactical format. in my opinion, those are two completely different types of games.
before playing, I have a list of each characters Dex bonus. this gives me a loose order for the characters. as any scene unfolds, characters can interact in any number of ways, to include attacks.
during a full melee encounter, the play is very fast. because I have a rough character order, I just insert npc's and opponents as appropriate. this allows for a free flow of activities. it also means the players need to pay attention and be ready to act, as they don't have a designated turn order. I simply ask a player to describe the actions of a particular character. anything they want to do is fine and if it's something difficult, then a roll is made (to include any attacks).
there is no pausing play or stopping to 'prep for combat'. as characters and others in the scene are offered opportunity to interact, if they are not ready to describe the characters activity, then they get passed and another character or others can advance the scene. this means players need to be ready at all times. I encourage banter and other conversation relevant to the game as these things can be chaotic.
it makes for some hectic and crazy gaming, but it's both fun and exhausting.
another big aspect, not all combats are fatal. many include running away or escaping. this is great for story telling and having reoccurring encounters with henchmen.
hope this gives new GMs a new approach to running RPGs.
Riddle of Steel has an interesting combat system, designed mostly for duels. The two side decides if they wish to attack or defend at the same time, and reveals it together (can be done with cards or dice with separate colors held in closed fist). The thing is that you can only attack if you reveal attack intent, and you can only defend if you reveal defend. If both sides reveal attack, they do at the same time, which can be catastrophic because none of them can defend from the others attack. So they both will probably reveal defend at the first few turns, which is the ideal of two fighters circling each other, trying to figure out the right time to attack. Once one reveals attack and the other defend, they start the exchange and it turns into a regular fight of hitting and blocking.
That does sound very cool!
I really like your initiative system and the decision of who goes first is smart and simple.
I’ve been making my own game over the past few years, in between work, school, and the doldrums, and I’ve tinkered around with the initiative system some. You’ve inspired me.
Something I’d like to see is how you’ve structured the classes and leveling, or whatever is the equivalent in the game and how they work, how you’ve laid out progression and building of abilities.
Thanks so much, I'm glad I could inspire you! And yes, classes will definitely be a large topic in the future. I might do an introductory video to briefly go over all the classes, and then do a separate video that dives deeper into each one. I might have to do a few other videos first though, to establish mechanics that the classes depend upon. Stay tuned, and keep at it, friend!
Theater of the mind kills my brain.
As of currently, I am using static initiative. Since it doesn't really matter who goes first after a round or two, only in the first two rounds of combat really. What really matters is relative positions of the combatants in the initiative track. As such, static initiative makes things much simpler for both myself and the players, as the transition from narrative to tactical combat is seamless.
To use static initiative, take the initiative bonuses of everyone and write them down, then just go from highest to lowest. No dice rolls necessary, no 'roll for initiative' key phrase to denote that we are now switching our mindset from talking to hitting things. No unnecessary pause while the GM sorts out everyone's order of actions.
I've found the card-based initiative system from Savage Worlds to satisfy both the chaotic element of combat turn order while making round-by-round turn order be fast and exciting.
Each round, the GM passes out a card to each PC as well as one card for each enemy group. The turn starts at Ace and ends at Two. For ties, go in reverse suit order. When someone draws the Joker, they get a bonus to their action rolls, damage rolls, and they can choose to go whenever they want. After the round when the Joker is drawn, the GM reshuffles the deck.
To represent characters that are quick on their feet, there's the Level-Headed edge, which grants them the ability to redraw a card if they get lower than a 5. There was another edge that granted the ability to draw two cards and pick the better of the two and an improved version that let them draw three cards and pick the best of the three.
The fun with tactical combat is that the narrative can create surprises to the narrative a dramatic combat would not be able to. We all know that one campaign where the players rushed the big bad and killed him first round through lucky crits even though they were way underleveled to defeat him.
I switched over to similar systems awhile ago and I agree. The biggest difference is my players talk to each other more and I like that. And players feel more invested and pay more attention even when it isn't their turn. I currently use "Giffyglyphs Darker Dungeons" it's a massive overhaul of 5e for a more gritty game. I recommend checking out the active initiative system for inspiration within it as it's similar to yours.
Hey, I'll have to check that out, thanks! And yes, I'd love nothing more than to have my players spend more time talking, strategizing, and engaging when combat rolls around. Hopefully this helps make that happen!
Yeah see I would consider that metagaming unless it's in character. It seems weird that you would go for a more difficult overhaul of the game, and then just make it objectively easier to play
This is definitely faster than rolling, but having used this system before for about a dozen sessions, I didn't really notice any more drama or any less friction without initiative, and it makes combats too...predictable? samey? for my taste. You always know when everyone is going to go, which actually makes things more tactical, while robbing the drama of needing to make a tough call when you can't get turns to work perfectly, which made me feel like it was kinda the worst of both worlds.
Currently, I break each kind of monster into a different unit and give them evenly spaced initiatives of 5/10/15/20/etc + their initiative modifier, and then let my players either choose to roll (which they always do) or just use 10+initiative (running PF2e).
All that being said, though, I haven't played a game that was designed from the ground up to capitalize on group initiative, and could see that adding a ton of fun narrative and drama if the PCs can meaningfully interact with each other in the superturn by layering action orders.
The version of D&D I play has a basic roll 1d10 for initiative (no mods). I run round robin initiative. So I roll and one player rolls initiative. Then which ever side wins, they or I choose which PC/NPC may go first. Then a character from the other side goes, and so on. This allows not only early tactical planning but adaption to battlefield evolution.
So for you demo example; After surprise round, if we roll off and I (as GM) win initiative then maybe one of the lizard men blocks the door to attack. The knight can then say, "I want to bash w/my shield and move him back or to the side." which then breaks an opening. then if the hydra comes in to melee w/the knight to attack the next melee can move forward or the first distance attacker in range attacks (player's choice). The next turn, the next player to the right of the previous PC who rolled (I go clock wise) will roll against me to see if a PC unit goes first or an NPC unit.
This way may sound boring on paper but it has made some interesting combat rounds in my games.
9:00 Yes fixed initiative has problems, BUT limiting yourself to just one tactic is a losing strategy, ie if the Wizard's magic is so short ranged he can't shoot a Hydra from 8 hexes away, maybe he should carry a ranged weapon that can.
I always used side initiative but resolve actions by pairs of combatants. So, if the heroes win initiative, one of them (they decide) goes first, then the bad guy he attacked. Play proceeds around the room--hero and opponent. If a spell has an area effect, it probably causes everyone to pause, which then requires a new initiative roll.
That sounds very intuitive! I feel like I toyed with something like that a while back, I'll have to dig in my old notes....
Everyone goes at the same time. Deadly. Chaotic. Fun.
If you have to roll (or it of easy via VTT) then fully blind is the way to go. It's real and scary.
I may have missed a comment but this system makes sense, instead of delaying on their turn the monsters would have used their action to set up their reaction to attack the party members at range as they came through the door. Making the job of the tank extremely necessary as he enters and absorbs the damage followed by the rest of the party. Seems like a good example to me.
The best tactical combat system I've ever played was a home-brewed Zelda R.P.G. I found on the 1D4chan wiki. It had group initiative, where everyone rolled and whichever team had the higher roller went first.
What I really love about it though is the action economy. Every round, each character gets three actions, which can either be used on their team's turn to act, or on the opposing team's turn to react to or defend against attacks. This lead to a really interesting dynamic where the team that went first would actually have to play more cautiously so that they could save one or two actions to defend against their enemies. The team that went second, on the other hand, could go all out with whatever they had left from the first team's attack.
"I wanna have both at the same time"
Hey, me too!
Initiative order determined by number of combatants per side is a fresh take; I enjoyed the action economy justification for it.
Another rationale for group initiative over individual init is the silliness that insues when two battle lines charge toward one another in an open field using individual init.
Thanks for the video!
The point of an initiative system is that speed is a virtue. It allows you to take advantage of situations and ensures you're not dead before you can be effective. If you remove initiative then speed is only important in the narrow other circumstances allowed in your mechanics, and special ops trigger men react in a fight with the same alacrity as Haiku Authors. Allowing all of one side to go first gives somewhat clever players or GMs the opportunity to focus a lot of damage or effects on a single target and make them irrelevant in the fight, it allows one side to dictate terms on the field, they can arrange a front line of their toughest fighters with support behind them while the second group just deals with the position they start their turn in.
This is just how D&D was played in the 70s and early 80s.
A good DM would also have his Monsters and NPCs react in small ways as the Players conducted their moves and attacks, the DM would likewise always listen to Players wishing to react in small ways to the actions of the Monsters/NPCs. Each side took their turn but any reasonable/logical reaction to unfolding events was weighed and ruled on by the DM. The end result is more of a flowing narrative than an I-Go You-Go illogical mess.
I think you're chasing a problem to solve, but your mechanic still leads to the same results as normal initiative while creating others. Examples:
Ambush 1
Large Group ambushes, slaughters Small Group, battle over before first round.
Ambush 1.1
Large Group ambushes, doesn't slaughter Small Group, setting initiative from there.
Ambush 2
Small Group ambushes, doesn't slaughter Large Group, still smallest group so goes again, slaughters Large Group, battle over during first round.
Ambush 2.1
Small Group ambushes, doesn't slaughter Large group, is now largest group, setting initiative order from there.
With the exception of Ambush 2, the Ambush dictates turn order, not group size. Additionally given the wording it seems possible for a small group to go twice allowing them to slaughter a larger group in the first actual round.
Small 1
Small Group retreats, battle over before first round.
Small 1.1
Small Group regroups with reinforcements, now larger group while also acted first.
Small 1.2
Small Group uses terrain, fights 3v1 thus tactically larger group while also acting first.
Small 1.3
Small Group ignores terrain, probably what's intended.
Depending on the speed and courage of the group in question, Small 1 and 1.1 could become the norm. While there's little reasons for any group to abandon an advantageous position, so giving an entrenched foe the first move would make dislodging them even more difficult.
So, all in all the attempt to give the underdog a fighting chance has backfired the majority of the time, either by giving them too large of an advantage, or simply dying outright to ambush which is still possible despite that being the primary reason for the solution.
Now unfortunately your intent for the initiative mechanic won't work so long as you can ambush a foe with more than a single character. After which, whoever goes first will still have the advantage of being able to damage the foe before they can act. Now maybe that's not an issue, after all it works wonders for stealth games, so long as it's not too easy to abuse.
Personally, the only fair option for ambushes to work is to limit it to a single character, otherwise Ambush 1 or 2 could become the norm. While initiative wise, the only way to keep the first group from dogpiling and destroying the second is to have them trade off initiative till everyone has gone. Examples:
Ambush A: 4 Players, 4 NPCs
Players ambush, Player 1 kills NPC 1, ambush ends.
Ambush B: 4 NPCs, 4 Players
NPCs ambush, NPC 1 kills Player 1, ambush ends.
Small A: 3 Players, 4 NPCs
Player 1 kills NPC 1, NPC 2 attacks, Player 2 attacks, etc.
Small B: 3 NPCs, 4 Players
NPC 1 kills Player 1, Player 2 attacks, NPC 2 attacks, etc.
Unlike with the Full-Team initiative mechanic, the Trade-Off mechanic still allows the smaller group a chance to fight back, unless of course the group in question is only a single character, then depending on their individual power, you may inadvertently be setting up a stealth puzzle game.
Still super excited about this! Please keep the updates coming!
My perspective is super limited, only having found D&D within the past couple of years and hardly played any other TTRPG. I have DM'd a handful of times for brand new players and I really like the idea of taking away things that players have to keep track of. Even in my more experienced games initiative and turn order are always a hassle: "Whose turn is it?", "Wait is it me now?", "Do they go next?", etc. I really like the solution you have since it also doesn't put more on the DM. Just overall less to track and leaves room for tactics and/or role playing. Mechanically I don't foresee any reason this shouldn't be fun or would be unfair to players, esp. since you are designing with it in mind; I'm pumped about it:) I do worry there might be some issues with some players not feeling like they have their own time to shine if a bunch of others quickly start rattling off what they want to do, like in games with a mix of beginner players and experienced players. This could be an easy fix as any DM should be able to notice this and just ask the player(s) being isolated to speak about their goals this turn of combat. Maybe leave a note about this to warn DMs. Also, leaving a bunch of players who are really into tactics to share a turn together, could lead to very very slow turns as they keep trying to optimize their actions/movements/combos. But again, this would just be something to warn a DM about. Maybe extended indecision on player's turns could even have the consequence of that turn being pushed until later factions have gone as this indecision is actually seen in the game from their characters as well.
Again, these are super small comments. Overall I really like the idea and it seems to solve what I didn't like about initiative. As far as other content to see, could a faux combat encounter be played out with your rules? Maybe super simplified characters, only 2-3 factions, and possibly playing out a first encounter of a draft campaign starter?
Also, just because of the silly name, and literally no other reason, do you have that certain factions get "faction actions"? For example, on their turn the faction of pirates fires one volley of cannon shots from their ship. I always liked Lair Actions in D&D and wanted to see more lol.
Great comment, thanks so much!
Yes, I do see the potential for louder players to drown out the quieter ones, which isn't ideal. I've experienced that in certain board games as well, and I'd hate to see one player decide they're the master strategist and tell everyone else what to do. So yeah, I think that should be a prominent section in both the player and GM chapters.
As for faction actions, that's a great idea! I admit I hadn't really thought about that, but now I am for sure!
The point of rolling initiative in the first place is to give the enemy a chance to act between the allied turns. Delaying your turn just to fix up the turn order is only silly assuming everyone is already next to eachother in the turn order, but if the enemies' turns end up pairing up the wizard/rogue apart from the fighter and ranger/paladin you're gonna have a different situation. Sure, you can still delay your turn, but you're not just allowing your allies to act before you now, you're allowing the enemies to act before you.
I'd like a hybrid; everyone rolls initiative, but the inits are couched within the team-turns. That way players are less likely to spotlight hog or get caught up being over polite, and you keep the fun of rolling. The team-order should really be context dependant (sneak attacks etc) but you could also go from the highest individual roll (and give/allow advantage on init rolls if you feel generous/they use inspo)
I play an indie ttrpg for One Piece adventures in witch you have to roll initiative and sort the turn order in EVERY. SINGLE. ASAULT. You had to do it this way because there exists mechanics in wich 2 characters with the same initiative could colaborate to make their actions. And I have 6 players. That's 12 units fighting if you don't want to always give the players number advantage. I had to make a gargantuan automated excel sheet with tons of features to make the sorting for it to be even feasible, if you knew only a fraction of my pain...
I think initiative works better in video games where the game auto-sorts and you can see the order at the top of the screen. Especially if you have to do it every round lol
I like it. I might not be able to convince any of my DMs to try it because I'm not proficient in Persuasion, but it doesn't take any more convincing for me to if I ever get there.
This method does not help with the drama of a scene, per say.
It helps with keeping the game fun for everyone, it helps with making the game more tactical. It doesn't address how it helps the drama of a scene.
The drama of a scene is created by tension and, to a lesser extent, the release of that tension.
A hallway where the party is cramped, and the wizard can't use their powerful spell safely, creates tension. The player feels that tension when they complain that don't get to do anything.
It might be good to remove these negative sources of tension, as doing so may help the game be more fun to play.
However, the dramatic tension of "my character could help, if only they could be in the right place, at the right time," is a classic scene for many stories. Hopefully I don't have to explain that in the scene where 'Frodo could be healed in Rivendell, if only they could get him there in time,' is quality dramatic tension.
So...how do you fix this? One way is to let the players decide the order of their initiative, then they could choose to be in a jam in a hallway. In other words, they opt into the extra difficulty of scene, one where the wizard is stuck behind the party. But a lot of players will not, for reasons that you explained in the video.
Roll from the start and whomever is higher starts first and go clockwise.
Great video! Earned a sub. :)
I think your version for determining turn order is an awesome fix for positioning problems, and is superior to rolling for initiative as is. However, my concern with the units grouped together for turns is that there is still a high risk of "ganging up" on individual PC's or enemies without them being able to do much. (Standard initiative can have that problem too, of course.) I think a hybrid of this with initiative rolls could be interedting to try.
A change my D&D group made was using alternating initiative, and it has been a good balance once everyone is engaged in the combat. Everyone rolls like usual, but tracking PC's and Bad Guys separately. Then we alternate between 'units' (using your term) getting a turn, with the next character within that unit going. (They can choose to wait and reenter the initiative at a later time, but that permanently changes their place in the order, and it gives the other unit another turn.) This ensures that combat maintains a constant back and forth each round, eliminating a lot of the 'swingy' feel the combat momentum can have in D&D. Once all members of a unit have completed their turns, the rest of the round plays out according to the remaining initiative scores. Then start again at the top of the next round.
Now, Alternating Initiative won't solve the positioning problems you aptly pointed out. I may try using your rules for the first round to allow the PC's to get into the room, then switch to initiative once the chaos of combat has begun and everyone is acting (almost) simultaneously.
Hey, thanks for the sub! Yes, this is definitely something that might see a fair amount of revision throughout the playtest process. I'll want to try a bunch of different options, and there's a lot that goes into it. I do think that giving the initiative to the smaller units first will help the "ganging up" situation somewhat, in the first round anyway. Certainly doesn't solve the overall problem, though.
- Your example contradicts your rule 2B. The smallest unit acted 2nd. I understand this was not the point of your example, however it can be confusing.
- The purpose of initiative is not only to determine who acts first, but also to track if everybody acted during a round (it is especially true with large groups), If you have to spend time to check whether everyone acted or not at the end of the round, then what you have gained at the start is lost at the end, and combat becomes boring (not dramatic). Plus, if you fail to track turn order, being skipped as a player sucks.
- On the same page: waiting for your turn sucks. So what happens when your smaller unit of 5 monsters has to fight a PC party of 6? The last PC might have to wait 10 turns before acting, the player will probably loose focus in that case (not dramatic). Likewise, what happens when the larger group ends up being the smallest after everyone took its turn? Is initiative determined again, thus allowing a group to act twice in a row?
Sorry for all the questions, I really enjoy your take on initiative, I'm just trying to help.
EDIT: missing words and please check my answer to your first game design journal if you have time. Thank you :).
Have you considered looking at Fung Shui?
The game mechanic (combat, story, etc.), is designed to mimic Hong Kong action cinema (Kill Bill, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, *any* Jackie Chan or Bruce Lee film...). It's simple, straightforward and intended to be fast-paced, dramatic and, most importantly, cool and fun.
I will definitely steal parts of this!
You stop rolling for initiative!
The initiative system in my gane is counter clockwise starting with whoever set off the action scene, GM does all NPCs on their turn.
Sounds like it's on the "dramatic combat" side of things, if I were to guess! :)
I've been looking into alternative initiative systems myself, both to homebrew in D&D as well as to add to my own system. Your idea is interesting.
But I disagree that the example you gave makes the current D&D initiative system look bad. On the contrary, it's a great example of how terrain influences the tactics of a combat. The attackers are in a jam and have to try and scoot or attack around their allies, which makes life difficult for them - that's the exact reason a defender might build a corridor like that, a choke point. Because it's easier to defend. A party entering such a corridor would then know that their potentially high initiatives won't guarantee that they get to attack, which creates tactical decisions even before combat starts; a heavily armoured fighter might be able to take the most hits, but would likely be lower in the turn order. So do they place them at the front or not? Decisions decisions. A traffic jam in this instance creates an interesting scenario that adds tension.
If you absolutely want to eliminate useless initiative rolls, you _could_ only let the characters who could actually do something on their turns roll and let each subsequent character roll the moment they can do something. Except, of course, that their are often plenty of things a character can do, even if they can't move or attack, such as casting spells (to buff, debuff, control, etc.) or using class features. So it's best to just let everybody roll and for the people who then can't act just say there's nothing they can do that round. High initiative was then an advantage the terrain removed from them.
If the players and GM dislike the types of combats choke points create, the GM should just stop adding them.
Turn-based tactical videogames like Fire Emblem do it like this and it works really well. It really does feel tactical compared to the DnD I've played in the past
I think a video of a full encounter with players and explaining every step of the fight would be fun to see
So in my game a lot of actions resolve around the wieght the characters carry, so does the Initiative too. If you carry a lot of armour and heavy weapons you move and react slower. If the players encounter a Pack of very light enemies, the enemies most probebly automaticly go first and the players have to make sure they don't get outmanouvert.
Videogames but Fire emblem uses a team turn structure. You can still mob down individual units. Triangle stratagy uses an initiative structure based on unit stats. Initiative does not need to be rolled and if rooted in a stat structure could be planed around.
I have been running a play by post, where combat rounds happen in order of whoever has the time to comment first. Instead of "Roll for initiative", it's "Round One - Fight!" Which work's pretty good, though I might need to come up with something else if I where to stream or something.
I've been using a similar initiative system for a while now. I got the original inspiration from Mansions of Madness. Instead of allowing the outnumbered party to go first, I just have a single die (no modifiers) roll off. Not because I think it's better than your method, but simply because I never considered not rolling at all.
I probably won't change to granting the outnumbered party first initiative, mostly due to the fact that I don't always want my players to know exactly how many opponents they are facing. To me the unknown is a large part of the dramatic sense of danger, and knowing you are outnumbered (or vice-versa) totally destroys that immersion. Plus you still get to say, "Roll for initiative!"
You did encourage me to think of other ways I might consider first initiative though. Maybe using a point of inspiration immediately grants it to the players... 🤔 I don't know, but it is something to consider.
One of the simplest systems I've seen is ICRPG which allows players to go first (unless there's a reason they wouldn't like being ambushed) and announce what they're doing clockwise around the table. You could make that more dynamic by seating people around a table in the order of how quick they are...quickest first. It's the same in EZD6 which has been live playtested to a huge degree with the object of making combat fun.
Ultimately though, you point out a problem with many RPGs...that the mechanics result in combat being the same thing over and over with a lot of dice rolling, less role playing, less descriptions and less imaginative, exciting, fun actions.
If you think about what happens in movie combat there's usually improvised weapons, improvised defense (using a book from the bookshelf or a candlestick etc), heroic moves like jumping off things, throwing objects from the room, getting thrown through objects, ducking under tables to avoid getting hit etc. etc. etc.
Complex rules that try to be realistic hinder that type of combat for a simple reason...good fiction is not realistic...it's dramatic and exciting and usually has a person or a group of underdogs overcoming overwhelming odds by pulling together to do something remarkable and unexpected.
Rolling for initiative is BORING compared to working out the cool, exciting things party members might say and do and the cool, frightening things their opponents might say and do in an encounter and running with that.
Most RPG combat rules are a strait jacket that slows down combat, restricts what the players can do and results in players and their opponents acting in predictable ways that aren't all that interesting once you've been in a dozen combat scenarios.
And ultimately combat rules in most systems just increase or decrease the chance of hitting by increments of 5% then increase or decrease the chance of damage done. For a lot of messing around with initiative, dice rolls, adds etc. you're not adding much fun and you're eating up time that could be spent role playing.
Perhaps think outside the miniature rules box that most RPG combat derives from and come up with something unique, cool and fun to play that is different.
This is very interesting.
It feels like the difference between FFT and Tactics Ogre.
I personally would just create a simple initiative system and use your unit system to make things easy and fun.
I'm thinking all units start with 10 Speed and any bonuses to initiative (from spells, items, and ability mods, etc.) are added up for the entire unit and any negatives to Speed would take away from it, so a unit can have less than 10.
So let's look at how we can get a unit of PCs with collectively 17 Speed
(lets' say 4 PCs,
A has +2 Speed from Dex mod,
B has +1 from gear,
C has +1 from a spell effect
and D has +3 from gear and Dex mod)
Now we do the same for the enemy unit.
Then we look to see if the enemy has a higher speed score than the PCs.
If the PCs have 17 and the enemies have 15, then the PCs go 1st collectively as a unit.
I really like this idea and wanna try it now.
I would hate to take away certain characters' ability to go 1st in a combat that specifically built that way, such an Assassin or a Gloomstalker Ranger.
Nice. I already play games with simplified initiative, but I like the suggestions of having the smaller group go first or having players go in the order that makes most sense.
Rolling for initiative has kind of sucked for pacing. I have tried with some success, where we set out a bunch of combat rolls (a set of six prerolled dice rolls we can just burn). We automatically have the roll selected for initiative. I've never had anyone agree with me, but I feel the order should be simpler, just agree who will always lead the attack and have a set order, and the side the wins the initiative roll goes first (players vs. DM).
An idea I'd like to try is a Team Move. So you're in a campaign End of Act 1 or in the middle of Act 2 and the party has overcome a challenge and its brought them closer together. The party is rewarded with Team Move. In any encounter the party gets to do a team move. A Team Move being where each party member gets to take 1 action, all the actions happen at the same time, they are not rolled sequentially. Yes, that means the party now has OP forever initiative, but it is an escalation, so the challenges also escalate.
I feel like initiative is one of the first game systems that tables will house rule. Imo, a game system should just show the players how to use the game dice to determine initiative in case the players want dice to be involved. It can then make suggestions about initiative without using dice, but honestly if the table doesn't want to use diced to do initiative then their initiative system will work in any system and they probably won't take the advice of the rulebook. they'll probably just do what they've always done.
I’m imagining an ability/perk something along the lines of “Lone Wolf” where a character counts as their own unit and by virtue of this almost always goes first. Sounds really fitting for a rogue type character
Great idea with the team initiative.
The only question is which initiative modifier to use.
Monsters typically have a leader, but the PCs don’t always have an obvious leader.
In that case I would probably opt to let the “initiative character” roll.
With the team initiative system I would likely change the Improved Initiative feat (pf1) so that the character with it does not count towards team size.
The example seems to speak more to not using narrow corridors than anything else! The smaller team is not the underdog, the NPCs are, they lose a lot.
Team initiative is fine - it's how D&D started after all. I did enjoy the Edge of Empire system where the players generate initiative slots but any player could use them. This is less good for the other side where it puts pressure onto DMs. I'd maybe have fast players - bad guys - slow players. (for my ideal - your system is fine)
I do appreciate the extra trickery players can use when group initiative is used, not sure about splitting character actions rather than just teams; happens fine in lots of CRPGs but then it's all my brain and my time if the turn starts to get painfully long.
On the original point I always think of myself as a tactical gamer but really PCs win 99% of the time in RPGs so it's kinda chimerical. I guess it's how little fudging the DM has to apply...
I'm not sure I have had satisfactory dramatic combat in another system. Drama in tactical fights can be emergent and is why sport is more dramatic than theatre as I used to tell an actress friend.
I think there is another type of combat "cinematic" where you are doing things that are cool not effective. Feng Shui classically aims for this but so do some Supers games and many other games can be played like this especially if you are the comic relief character (Brother in the Mummy, kid in Indiana Jones). There's also cathartic, beating up bad guys after a long day at work.
1:17 Thank you for this Vid!
I use side based initiative, similar to this. However, I decide which side goes first based strictly on the narrative. And if there is no obvious reason why one team should go first, the players' team goes first.
I only rarely ever been in a game that used tactical battlemaps. Most groups I played with roll for initiative, but everything is just words and descriptions. That makes it a bit harder on the GM, since they would ahve to describe all the possible tactical details in the combat area, rather than just put down a map with props, but if a player wants to use a certain gambit, they can just ask if a certain feature or item is present in the room, like is there a table or barrel to jump onto to get a clear shot from higher ground. This avoids the idea that combat is static just because the figures on the battle map are not moving. In D&D there is a spell that affects a specificed area of 5x5feet, one square, causing anybody who steps into that area to slip and fall (Dex save). with a battle map, one can claim and pretend that one can effectively fight by standing next to the affected area and whailing onto the enemy who keeps falling due to the oil slick. Realistically, however, if you are in melee with somebody in that field, you are affected just as much since there is a lot of movement in the 10 second combat round. Remove the battle map and figurines, and suddenly you ahve to be careful not to get trapped in your party mage's spells
I've been developing a game system for a while now, and this video was excellent. we arrived at the same conclusion, separating the combats into general "teams" and letting people act in any way on those teams. For my little twist, the system I'm making has the choice between being aggressive or defensive also matter a lot to a players survivability, with the same action type for attacking being used for blocking, dodging, or resisting/countering magic as well. It lets players control the flow of combat and be motivated to focus on assisting their teammates more than just killing the enemies, and the heroics of saving a team member help lend the combat some narrative drama too.
One problem that may arise is that if you have a child as a player character and the rest of the player characters are adults usually the child will insist on going first and if they don't they have a hissy fit.
Knave, Cairn are two that come to mind that encourage group initiative. I like the concept of allowing the smaller unit to go first.
Interesting, I also agree that in real life you're not forced into a turn order, you observe the battlefield and choose a moment to act. Since my game relies on an app, I can just auto roll initiative every round without slowing the game down, so asking the players to stop and decide what turn order they are going in would actually be slower. Most of the problems you posed have to do with movement, and my game is theater of the mind only, so it is less of an issue. I was thinking of a similar problem with DnD recently, imagine you were dashing through the halls of a dungeon, and you just so happen to end your dash in front of an open door of a room full of 100 goblins with crossbows... Now, despite the fact that you are running at full speed and the Goblins would realistically have about a tenth of a second to react, they all get to shoot you... So sometimes movement in a turn-based game can actually make things _less_ realistic, when the only reason they are there is to make things more realistic. Most of the time, it is just a pain to have to remember the ranges of weapons and spells and sometimes spending your entire turn only moving because you are too far away to do anything, it doesn't make the game more fun and only slightly more realistic, imo.
I certainly agree, though I admit I don't have a lot of experience with theater of the mind combat. I typically use it for small encounters where the terrain doesn't really matter (e.g. the party encounters a single guard in the hallway), but for anything else I have a hard time visualizing positioning of characters without aid.
And auto-rolling initiative is certainly a blessing. Or the GM can roll everyone's initiative beforehand, to save time at the table. So that certainly helps.
@@elementalyarn Oh totally, and I mean DnD beyond lets you auto roll initiative, but like I said there is a lot more DnD beyond could do for players that it doesn't do for some reason, it could go much further to make our lives more convenient.
And I very much agree I also like visual aids, except that problem only arises when you are playing a game that involves distance and position in every spell and weapon. If "distance" and "position" don't exist in your game, you never have to worry about it. In my game, for example, speed is just an ability, when you melee attack someone with equal or higher speed than you, you have to pass a speed check against their passive speed in addition to the normal attack roll. You skip this speed check if the target is someone that melee attacked you after your last turn or you have higher speed than the target. Obviously ranged attacks also skip the speed check. The exact positioning and all that can be done with roleplay. Think of it like playing Darkest Dungeon, or Raid Shadow Legends with a GM mode, you are all just basically standing in a room together taking turns attacking one another. DnD, for instance, wasn't designed for that so it can feel unfair and illogical when you do theater of the mind combat with it.
So... what happens if your players are all druids and the battle starts as a 15v4 and on turn 1, one of the druids casts Entangle and the other three all summon 8 creatures and then run for cover? Now the battle is a 24+4 vs 15 but with the higher activating side always getting first initiative.
The last effort to rid myself of the "call for initiative" drama drop was last session. Before the game began, that greeting period, I told the players to roll for initiative 5 times, keeping an A-E listing. Then I explained, I would choose the one that made sense for the combat or action at hand. It worked well they felt it was their rolls, but I never had to have them break the wall. I use DnDBeyond encounter creator, insert their rolls and then order my Monsters for the scenario. It does the damage math, I call for action. It worked well. I do groupings as well. So player 1,2,3, monsters group 1, players 4,5, monster group 2, players 6 and 7. They, the PC, like the dispersion and not total grouping. It means some player action always is imminent.
This sounds a lot like side initiative which is an initiative variant on p 270 in the DMG.
You have each side roll a d20 flat. The side with the Highest roll goes first.
Everyone on that side say what they will do in whatever order they want. Dungeon master arjudicates and narrates what happens.
Then the next side goes.
Round over.
I see this working very well in smaller groups. 2-4 players.
Any more it could become a chore to remember what everyone is doing
I can see a lot of potential in this. My players struggle to pay attention when it isn't their turn and turning their turns into a larger team turn, where anyone can do anything at any time may make them more involved. It could also run into issues where people are waiting for someone else to do something for so long that nobody does anything. Have you run into this before and how did you solve it?
I will try to have them roll initiative anyway, that way IF nobody takes an action it will default to whoever is highest that has actions left. We play Pathfinder 2E so having people just mark off actions as they use them is pretty straightforward.
For the enemy side/s, do you play them in a cluster of actions or do you tend to still play them each individual at a time? I may still end up running them as normal with their own initiatives, or maybe determine the order in advance for dramatic effect (let minions act at the start of the enemy turn and end with the strongest of the group).
The only other thing that I can think of that might be a problem, is the party would have to wait through ALL enemy turns before acting/adjusting. Positioning or lucky critical hits without a player turn in between to either move to block, heal, etc. could be overwhelming. Granted this is part of the tactical planning to not leave yourself exposed but have you ever run into issues like this?
Several Considerations:
Gaining and maintaining momentum in a combat is key.
Is not both the dramatic tension and interesting combat challenges, about reconciling this momentum?
Some other considerations, would involve not drifting into a table that feels the GM is an adversary, in determining Groups/units....
Where as the dice initiative is a neutral arbitrator at the table.
Seems your, (all actually), initiative system would seriously need a solid surprise and contextual moral determination system.
In your combat example, in determining group size, are you are counting actors able and willing to act/react over time as the battle unfolds....? round for round.
Avoiding crunch is.....
Rolling for initiative is one of those things that can be done away with, but there are some big problems that have to be addressed after doing so. The first problem is that it's much harder for a DM to work with. Most DMs are average, and trying to implement a system that subverts rules for narrative is difficult. I've tried playing without initiative and it fails whenever there is varying experience levels among players, because newer players have difficulty applying what their character can do in combat to out of combat scenarios. Without the explicit distinction between combat and not combat new players can feel lost. DMs without initiative have to plan encounters to be dramatic in some way and players may feel like they should never start a fight without the drama placed by the DM. The second problem is that making a fast pace combat requires staggered enemy initiative, if the DM plays the monsters for too long, players get bored. A good DM should strive for sub 1 minute monster turns. Narrative in DnD is very strange, because it's a cooperative story builder in collaboration between the players and DM. Players should feel like they have the ability to control the direction of the campaign, railroading is okay when everyone knows that's what's happening and wants to follow a storyline.
I think Legend of The Five Rings dose a good job of blending dramatic and tactical combat
Interesting idea. I have more of a rolling initiative system that works pretty well, but this is interesting too. It's always good to find ways to speed up play
I once had it up to here with initative and told the players that whichever party initiates teh action gets to go first.
One thing I think I might try to do to deal with inopportune initiative order is to add the "Delay" action from Pathfinder 2.0. when you Delay, any effects that happen at the start or end of your turn happen immediately, and you then can take your turn at any time before it gets back to your turn. When you take your turn, that is your new initiative.
Also, I might look into incorporating Savage Worlds initiative feature, where it changes every turn by everyone pulling a card from a deck.
Very nice system and not one I have seen much like before so always helpfull. I am trying out a similar thing with the party inititive being decided by a total that can increas based on characters skill and abuilities such as a leader giving the group a bonus as someone is organizing them. I really like the backwords system that Cogent uses for inititive ware the the people who act first state what they are doing last so that they can react to what others do, though it can be confusing to get use to.
Yes, I love systems like that, where "acting first" is actually detrimental. I think one of the best systems I've seen for that is in the starship combat in Starfinder, actually. The slower ships have to move first, which allows their opponents to maneuver based on that choice. Then everyone shoots at once after the movement phase is completed. It's a little tricky to figure out, and it can be very time-consuming. But ultimately very tactical in my opinion.
My prolem is if you whole party goes before the baddies get to go then more often then not that's pretty much the end of combat. especially fi they can decide who goes in what order to maximise their damage... same can be said if all your monster go at once they coudol easily take out one or more character before your PCs can even respeond
I started developing a rpg of my own a while ago, but have been stuck on deciding things like this. I've wanted to mix the two, but couldn't figure out how. My problem is that team based initiative although less complicated for a DM, is more complicated for the players. Getting players to agree on who goes first would be a nightmare. It would hopefully eliminate some of disinterest players tend to have during other players turns, but it might make combat longer if you have a group of selfish players.
I know not all players are selfish, but the same problem arises in a well coordinated group. If you're group is privy to optimizing combat it may take a while for them to come up with an optimal strategy, and that would halt combat as well. Idk anymore. . .
I’ve never understood why monsters just stand there in the middle of rooms, waiting for some adventurers to waltz in. At the very least wouldn’t the lizard men take positions at the door, hiding and waiting to strike as soon as someone steps through?
The best combat system I've seen and ttrpg for that matter is from a roll system called D100 Dungeon.
Stumbled into your video and I upvote the idea of a discord server; I would love to hop in and discuss game design with folks.
What are your thoughts on taking actions when it isn't your turn?
Example: In Magic the Gathering I can leave some mana open to be able to play cards on other peoples turns. Conversely, there is tension when another player does the same to me "What cards might they be holding? Will they be able to interfere with my plans?" Just the possibility heightens the experience, even if they ultimately didn't have anything to play at all.
There would be a few things you could have done in DnD 5e with that scenario, but it was an interesting look at the whole initiative check system. There have been a few times where I've rolled high on initiative, and then immediately had no idea on what I should do. So I've definitely been there
I'm not convinced that you don't just hate 5ft corridors. Also how do you deal with players that refuse to be part of the party in order to be the smallest unit
Enemies that are too strong for a single PC to solo.
I wonder if you could make initiative a check where you group the PCs into the units based on a broader category such as rolls 5-10, 11-15. That way you could still breakup various groups' actions into units like your system and allow for more dramatic play, but prevent "team fire" scenarios, ie all units hit one enemy unit destroying them instantly nearly unanswered. Which I think is an easily exploitable risk with your system.
You also risk undermining stakes if groups move in static simultaneous turns. Specifically when there's a mcguffin the players need, this type of initiative would me PCs could all bumrush it.
I do think GMs need to make calls on when and where certain systems need to be used. But most of my DnD experience comes from watching actual play, and the better DMs know when to bend the rules on how PC turn interaction works. And especially when PC initiatives are closer there is less reason to be strict since yes, it's silly for them not to be able to interact simultaneously at times.
But also I think initiatives add more drama than you acknowledge here, and that's the "race" feeling of initiative. Where small incremental shifts in combat can have this "we won by a hair" feeling. But even more than that separating initiatives allows for more reactive gameplay when the tide turns in an unexpected way. Such as when a player takes a lot of damage, heals need to be applied sometimes in between enemy turns so heavy hits can't completely end a character.
I just worry how much broad team based turns can transform turns into an unwealdly tank where you have to anticipate unexpected shifts. I wonder how much this would push characters into conservative plays when its harder to correct mistakes since teams move at once, which to me sounds less fun.
Definitely have the gears spinning in my head as a DM- thanks!
I think the biggest design issue that comes to mind for this is that depending on the system (I play 5E) - having an entire force act before another can really offset the balance of the battle. All my PC's going before my NPC's can really swing the battle in their favour (or the other way around!)
Have you considered using your system, but instead working in an "activation" system? That is to say, doing it exactly as you propose- but instead having members of each side "activate" to go one by one. That way, the players can still strategize which order they want to go in, but have to contend with the flow of battle as enemies go after each player. Probably easier to group enemies in that style- so the "Goblin archers" all activate at the same time, but it's something I'm now considering for my own campaign!
Hmm, I don’t know what system you’re building, but if it’s like 5E you’re running the risk of the monsters getting steamrolled if you do it this way.
From my experience and what I’ve seen anecdotally (still varies by table), the enemies outnumber the PC’s in most combats. This is to balance the action economy.
Here’s the problem, if every enemy goes after every PC, the PCs get a huge advantage. They get to drop all of their crowd control in the best spots and possibly take several of the minions out of the fight. This severely tilts the encounter balance in favor of the players.
The converse is also true. A small group of strong enemies might be able to knock out a player before they have a chance to act.
Now these problems exist in the current 5e rules - we’ve all seen it happen - but these alpha strike scenarios are much less likely to happen. Most often the initiative order is mixed up enough to prevent one side from winning before the combat has even begun.
Conan 2D20 has a similar initiative system where nobody ever rolls for initiative
very brilliant, mostly the underdog part, i have some question:
1 - does initiative order change after a units suffer any loss?
2 - imagine i want to use it in D&D 5e, what can i do do balance high dex and mostly talents and class feat that work for initiative?
I have a question. Long intro to it so here goes. In my game I have 2 player Characters, at most 4 NPC allies. So when combat begins, should I have the Players and NPCs be two different "squads", or should I have the NPCs and players be all one "squad"?
I think that this system sounds interesting and unique in theory. But I'm having a hard time understanding how the players will decide who does their turn first. I can see this becoming an issue when you have players that contrast each other in how talkative they are. For example, Joe and Sue are very talkative and make their thoughts known often, but Sally and Mike are typically quite people. In this party style, I can see the quiet ones going last the majority of the time within their unit.
I really like this idea, I just see there always being a need for some form of initiative.
If they're all smart players, which judging by their names and one dimensional personality descriptions, I assume they are. They will quickly learn ideal tactics for dealing with different types of foes, and utilize the flexibility of this system to take advantage of any given encounter.
It this example could the mage simply just choose to hold his action until a later point in the round?
I used this system in the game which i have designed, and do you know what feedback I have received? ...They said: initiative should be rolled, because it is too stressing for players to decide the turn order, and they would just argue about who should go first, and forget who had their turn already... I still could not process this feedback. They were basically saying that it is too stressing to make a decision, in a game which is about decision making.
I do have to ask if having a grid is even that great of a thing.
A lot of games do fine without, so maybe some of these problems are incurring because of needles simulation.
Geezer here....
Stopped, quit with no regrets. Back in 3.5, I decided I would play. But not DM. Nope, will run a character under about any ruleset, not Dming d&d again. I use my homebrew, not everyone's cup of tea. We do not roll initiative, rounds are not 6 seconds. It works great, at least at my table.
Gaming on.
Weird...
In my experience players that likes narrative tends to lean more towards tactical, because for them combat isn't part of the roleplay... its just mini game to solve the conflict.
While imersive players tend to roleplay through combat because to them that's what roleplaying is all about.
Or just set up an Excel macro that rolls initiative for the entire table and watch combat chaos ensue. Welcome to 2023, you are welcome.
Have you.. sped up the video? Is it me and my connection or is the audio clipping?
Right but what happens when the team/unit is competent? If everyone takes their turn together that's it, probably encounter over right there after one turn. You're still taking the exact same amount of turns, they aren't happening synchronously, so should take the same amount of time. What actually makes this faster? You cut out a single die roll from the players for what?
smart dms don´t use solo boss monsters unless the -pcs are already weak and depleted of resources
The title contains "dramatic" and you mention that your combat is both, tactical and dramatic, but then you talk the whole video just about the tactical side, but the dramatic side feels not really what I expect to be addressed under that term. In the end your turn order is still just tactical and has no drama considerations, so no wonder you think you can do both, when in the end you simply label some aspects as dramatic which still are not really about drama. Dramatic Initiative consideration would be for example who has the most to lose (or with the name of your project, maybe who has the most to gain should be more relevant here) or otherwise include what is at stake into the game mechanics, then you would have dramatic considerations.
Fair point! You are of course correct, the focus of this video is more on the tactical side of things. I guess one of the main points about dramatic combat here is that the transition from "free play" to "combat" is more seamless than it might otherwise be, so you can maintain the momentum of the moment.
That said, I did mostly talk tactics here, so that's on me, and it's what I get for trying to go scriptless, haha. I'll try and do better next time!
Not a fan. Side based initiative often results in a single opponent going down before they can do anything. Even when going second, focus fire can take down a target without the other side having any way to intervene.
My solution is phased intiative. Combat has 4 phases: blitz, fast, slow, and last. Your action determines your phase. The blitz phase will have one player go, then on enemy and keep on alternating. Repeat for each phase. It is mostly stolen from the Battletech game.
This is awful, just awful. First you make characters less unique. You cant be sneaky guy with high reflexes, no matter how quick or slow you are you are always at the same speed as everybody else.
Second, this type of initiative is commonly use in board and video games. And in most of the cases it devolve into "focus all you troops to kill imminent danger before it gets to you". Fire Emblem games use this style of combat rounds. To be fair it's not a bad design but it even get further from "dramatic" battle than normal turn order and become SWAT simulator.
Third, lets say party of 4 enter dungeon, thief go ahead to scout, bad luck he was spotted by 3 monsters. Now he can't do anything, just watch as every monster focus on him and shred him to pieces before he is even able to react. Even in normal situation you are always at risk that one character will get his ass kicked when every monster jumps on him, and no one will be able to anything before every single enemy get to hit him.
Forth, it's eliminate many of dramatic or difficult situations. You were running from monster, you are fast, first in round, you can escape any time, but this god damn, slow ass, paladin lagging behind, being last in turn order, he will be grappled and turn into paste. But maybe, just maybe he will get lucky enough to avoid every attack and get away safely. Will you stay or will you run?
Fifth, if it takes you 10 min to do simple math like 17+4 and figure it out if 21 is indeed a greater number than 5, than it is not a problem with the game. I played and GMed, online and IRL for years, and it'd never take more than 20s tops.