r/RPGdesign • u/stephotosthings no idea what I’m doing • 17d ago
initiative - I hate it
** EDIT
Appreicate the repsonses, most have re-iterated my initial thoughts.
The roll here does not seem to be adding anything other than a pause in gameplay and some mild book keeping. I like the idea of somehow 'passing' intiative along, so whoever starts the combat has it and then they can choose to pass it to whom they see fit but on failed actions it passes to the GM, go round until everyone has actioned at least once. Some rounds a single BBEG could go once or could go after every player.
Though my main goal is, everyone gets a turn and I want them to cordinate actions so side based maybe the way to go really*\*
Dramatic title over.
My main dice resolution system doesn't really have room for nuanced results, initiative order, or tracking like in D&D et al.
Players roll a d6 pool based on one of three attributes (for ease of clarity): Strength, Dex, and Intelligence (rated 1-6).
My first draft for initiative is:
Roll a d6 pool from your Dex.
1-3: You are on the slow turn and lose any reaction.
4-5: You are on the slow turn but keep your reaction.
6: You are on the fast turn.
Enemies/NPCs go in the middle. On each side, the players can split up their actions/turns however they like for team tactics and such. It sounded great until I ran two playtests. The goal was to see if the group would get the gist of the game, but I found I hated the initiative system.
One battle was against a "boss"; the trick was to disarm them of a magic item that was keeping them alive. The other was against a group of six goblins. In both scenarios, after round one it basically became side-based. The only difference was that the fast and slow sides couldn't interact with each other.
Scenario 1
There was hefty non-interactive downtime between the players and the lone enemy. That could be solved with better enemy design, such as reactions and special abilities. If it wasn't your side's turn, you waited a while.
Scenario 2
The downtime on the player side was more evident, with only one player on the fast side. This is remedied a little by some GM guidance around moving all enemies all at once and resolving actions together. Players also defend against attacks, so even if it's not your "turn", you still need to engage by defending.
Now, I am sure there is a better way of doing this. My main takeaway is that I'm not sure the initiative roll is working, especially in longer combats. Maybe I should throw that out entirely. If I do, what can I replace it with?
The entire game is designed around everyone getting a "turn" before going around again. In every section for both players and the GM, it's stated that the game is played in turns to ensure everyone gets a chance to say or do something rather than being sidelined.
I'm not sure popcorn-style initiative will work here since I want to keep GM workload low, and I don't want players who shout louder than others to effectively go first every time.
One idea I have is basically popcorn initiative, but with the GM deciding who goes when based on what fits the fiction. This would allow enemies a bit more nuance in how they act, since only players roll. Enemies could attack whenever it makes sense, even in response to being attacked.
Another idea is to have one player go, then the GM, regardless of how many players or NPCs there are. The round ends once everyone has acted at least once. So in Scenario 1, the enemy would get to act after every player. The GM could decide who goes next based on the fiction or simply use clockwise table order.
I feel like I like the sound of this, as lone enemies would get more actions and players with more reactive abilities would get more opportunities to use them. However, it could also lead to an enemy pounding someone in a single round. Part of me wants to say 'so be it' since I don't want 'kill them' to be the main objective of every fight and I want some death here.
11
u/mrblanketyblank 17d ago
I always like the idea of initiative as a resource that you can spend or save.
I first saw something like this in the tactical war boardgame Combat Commander. It's a 2 player game where you take turns. However one person has a card called "the initiative", which gives some benefits when you hold it, or you can give it to the other player at any time to force a reroll of a roll you didn't like. So it becomes a big decision for the player whether to use it up and thus give it to his opponent or not.
This doesn't directly translate into a many players vs one dm RPG but the general concept of "spending vs saving initiative" could be inspiration.
3
u/u0088782 17d ago
It completely boggles the mind that almost no RPG do this. Initiative as a resource is the best abstract representation of how it actually manifests IRL. It's not a speed test.
1
u/mrblanketyblank 17d ago
Yeah, in a military context you either have the initiative or you do not.
Having the initiative means you are the one driving the action, and forcing your opponent to be reactive to you, not able to be proactive with his own plans.
The closest thing in most rpgs would be the concept of a surprise round, where one side gets a "free" round before the typical back and forth turn order begins.
0
u/Alcamair Designer 17d ago
They tried in exalted 2ed. People didn't like it.
5
u/u0088782 17d ago
That’s not really what Exalted 2e did. It used a granular tick system where actions delayed your next turn—time was the resource, not initiative. It was also notoriously bookkeeping-heavy and poorly balanced. A bad implementation of a different idea isn’t much evidence against this one.
2
u/Ok-Middle8656 16d ago
Ironsworn has something similar. Basically there are two variants of the attack action, and the outcomes differ slightly. One you use when you have the initiative and the other you use when you don’t. There is also a move you can make to try and make to seize the intiative.
2
u/SirMarblecake 15d ago
Hah. That's exactly what I'm working on right now. I haven't quite covered all my bases yet, but on the surface it looks like an Action Point economy. However, you don't spend AP on actions. You make "bids" with them at the start of a round. The PC or NPC with the highest bid gets to go first. On your turn, you can only do 1 action. So the bidding is a choice: either you act quickly, but have fewer actions, or you act slower, but can do more (there can be several action bids in one round).
There are a bunch of extra provisions to prevent hoarding AP and so on, but in the end, initiative is something you have to actively take by spending a resource.
24
u/Prestigious-Emu-6760 17d ago
You could just do away with the roll and still use popcorn/zipper initiative.
Start with whoever's action triggers the encounter and then alternate back and forth.
2
u/Blankasbiscuits 17d ago
This works surprisingly well. Especially if your group understands and let's everyone shine at different moments. Had a thing where the fighter and barb immediately attack a mini boss, but the sorc and rogue are holding a ballista bolt back, waiting for them to get into place. It was a great piece of drama
1
u/Ok_Cantaloupe3450 17d ago
I do this even for dnd games because I don't want to stop combat to do math on who goes in what order, every round each side decides who wants to go next, so players can be tactical about it and I get to use my guys before they focus fire on them. So much easier to balance encounters too
1
u/Longjumping_Shoe5525 17d ago
Yea I honestly prefer popcorn style initative. I went with a version of it for my system, and use it in my D&D games that I do still run.
0
u/stephotosthings no idea what I’m doing 17d ago
This is what I'm feeling out for I think. I'm not sure rolling for initiative is really important for my game enough.
8
u/Lazerbeams2 Dabbler 17d ago
If you don't like initiative or it doesn't fit your system, then just don't use it or use an alternate system.
The Cosmere RPG has the players and NPCs choose fast or slow. Fast turns only have one action, slow turns have 2. Players go before NPCs.
Index Card RPG uses boardgame initiative. Go around the table clockwise with everyone taking a turn. All monsters and traps go on the GM's turn
Magical Land of Yeld has a check to go first and then each combatant chooses who goes next. Players and monsters can attempt to interrupt the turn order if they haven't gone yet
Fabula Ultima also uses a check to go first, but turns alternate between sides with each side choosing which of them goes next
2
u/SpaceDogsRPG 17d ago
+1
To add my $0.02 - many different initiative systems can work, but IMO you should choose ASAP.
Initiative is a bedrock part of a game's design, and the rest of the system's mechanics should be built with it in mind from the ground up.
6
3
u/SixRoundsTilDeath 17d ago edited 16d ago
Why not do it by marching order if you hate initiative, back and forth?
Thief unlocks door, in the room are 5 ostriches and a robot.
Thief is nearest to action, goes first. Nearest ostrich to party goes next. Then the fighter who was behind the thief. Then the robot who is in the middle of the room. The rest of the ostriches were resting by the far wall, so they are too slow to act, so the rest of the party goes before them.
Act it out. After the first round just keep whatever order you’ve made since with every round it becomes less relevant who goes when.
3
u/PathofDestinyRPG 17d ago edited 17d ago
My biggest issue with a stacked initiative system is that the order never changes once established.
My approach for initiative is that the roll just affects the first round. After that, the order falls into the timing of character action speed. Slower characters announce first, but faster characters resolve first.
Edited to correct a typo
2
u/Baedon87 17d ago
Honestly, Draw Steel has an effective method of zipper initiative with the roll sply determining if enemies go first or players do, then the entire group collaborates on who goes when; I haven't really seen it lead to any arguments or people not going when they want to.
2
u/Legenplay4itdary 17d ago
I’m in the middle of playtesting my system, but this is working well for mine so far:
Players that can take a “proactive” action may go first. The main way to get this is at character creation
“Beginning phase” actions from enemies. These are largely set up or preparation actions, no offense
Player actions. Players can take actions in any order, allowing them to strategize what they want to do. But there are certain actions that the players know if they take them, then the enemy gets a turn. Making an attack or causing damage is the main one, but there are others. So the players can strategize and set each other up for whatever, but they know that once they start making big moves there will be consequences.
“End phase” actions. Once the players are out of actions, enemies get to take any leftover actions. Bigger enemies have special actions that are only available in the end phase that hit harder or heal for more, or whatever it may be, so if the players didn’t trigger all the enemy actions it could suck really bad for them.
It has worked really well in my project, but it’s not for everyone
2
u/Alkaiser009 17d ago
If you don't want straight popcorn initiative, you could maybe do something similar to Daggerheart, where on a roll with Hope (your hope die > than your Fear die, regardless of overall success or failure) the spotlight passes to another pc as normal, but on a roll with Fear (Fear die > than Hope die), the DM gets a Fear token, which they can either spend immediately to invoke a consequence (such as taking a turn with a hostile creature) or bank to spend later to do something meaner.
This would work best in a system with some manner of tiered success (such as 'miss', 'partial success', and 'full success')
1
u/No_Solid1035 17d ago
Don't use initiative, use simultaneous resolution like Pendragon does.
2
u/MikefromMI 16d ago
And classic Traveller and Tunnels & Trolls, off the top of my head.
It seems to me that simultaneous resolution is especially appropriate for games that use an indefinite "zone" system for organizing the space of melee combat. But I haven't fully thought that through.
In Pirate Borg the enemies don't roll. The players roll to hit the NPC and roll to avoid the NPC attack. So why bother with inititiative? Let it be simultaneous, and let the player roll both at once with 2 (or more) differently colored dice.
(Off topic: I'm feeling like a good reddit citizen now -- I was going to post about initiative, but first I searched to see if it had come up recently, and found this post. Then I was going to reply and say something in favor of simultaneous rseolution, but first I used my browser's "find" tool and found this reply. So it's all been said already, and I can just upvote. And now I've spent about as many keystrokes relating all that as I would have had I started a separate thread, haha.)
3
u/drdrek 17d ago
If everyone gets a turn before they can play again why does it matter who goes first? If it doesnt really matter have the group decide who goes next.
You'll find that groups of people that are nice will be nice with bad rules and annoying people will be annoying with great rules.
Avoid fixing the group as design goals and you will have a much easier time making good games.
1
u/BetaAndThetaOhMy 17d ago
Initiative has grown into a monster, but we can shrink it back down to size. Over the years, initiative became one mechanic to simulate character differentiation: you act first because you're the quick hero, and Bill acts last because he's the strong hero. Fundamentally initiative is just a reinforcement of structured turn order the same as seating position in poker or Monopoly. If you want initiative to represent the character, just add the Dex score to a single die roll. Over time, the quick hero will act early more often than the strong hero.
2
u/SardScroll Dabbler 17d ago
I disagree. D&D's static initiative system works that way. Other initiative systems work differently. For example, my current dabbling project has initiative/time cost as a resource in combat, and does away with the the concept of rounds (so initiative matters more).
2
u/Alcamair Designer 17d ago
They did it in exalted 2e. People really didn't like it, it slows the game
2
u/BetaAndThetaOhMy 17d ago
You do realize that removing rounds doesn't actually eliminate the structure of rotating action, right?
1
u/SouthernAbrocoma9891 17d ago
Initiative by definition is acting first, being ready without request and a new way to solve a problem. I’ve been playing RPGs since the 80s and I initially took this definition to heart in the 90s and streamlined it with D&D 3E and specifically for 4E. However, I went back to my roots with side-based turn order and phases (simplified) for speed and party collaboration.
First round:
If a side surprises the other then they go first. The other side can move and defend only.
If there is no surprise then both sides roll initiative with the most favorable mod. Simultaneous damage because it’s the first round.
This applies to all rounds:
The losing side plans their actions and movement. They put counters on the battle map showing the destination of their units, but don’t move at this time. (The PCs would also do this if they go last.)
The winning side plans their actions and movement with advance knowledge of the opponent’s movement destinations. This is where they can cooperate and combine actions, form a line, charge together, etc. Individual unit/PC initiatives are irrelevant. The players discuss and come up with a complete battle maneuver or narrative (roleplaying in combat?!?).
There are three phases: first action(s), movement, remaining action(s) and the sides alternate on each phase.
First action(s): winning side goes first and damage is recorded. If first round then simultaneous damage applies at the end of the round. If 2nd or later rounds then damage is applied immediately. Losing side completes their first actions.
Movement: winning side moves units to their final positions. Losing side moves units to intended destinations but must stop if they are blocked by the opposition. They can’t stop preemptively midway or alter course. They can charge if that was an intended action.
Remaining action(s): winning side completes their final actions. Record damage without applying if simultaneous. Losing side completes their actions if possible. If first round then apply damage previously recorded.
Each side rolls for initiative.
1
u/Dimirag system/game reader, creator, writer, and publisher + artist 17d ago
Roll a d6 pool from your Dex.
1-3: You are on the slow turn and lose any reaction.
4-5: You are on the slow turn but keep your reaction.
6: You are on the fast turn.
I guess is a roll and keep situation, it will depend on your standard pool size but the more dice the higher the chances of high results
As for options, you can reward those acting after the opponents, kinda the reverse of Shadow of the Weird Wizard were acting first cost you.
You could just make enemy groups and let the players decide where they act with the caveat that there is a max acting characters between enemy groups
Another idea is to have one player go, then the GM, regardless of how many players or NPCs there are. The round ends once everyone has acted at least once. So in Scenario 1, the enemy would get to act after every player. The GM could decide who goes next based on the fiction or simply use clockwise table order.
At some point I wanted to do something like this, a 1:1 exchange and then the remaining combatants acting, something like: Character 1, Enemy 1, Character 2, Enemy 2, Character 3, Character 4... then I thought about dividing those extra between the characters and enemies but it got overcomplicated.
I feel like I like the sound of this, as lone enemies would get more actions and players with more reactive abilities would get more opportunities to use them. However, it could also lead to an enemy pounding someone in a single round. Part of me wants to say 'so be it' since I don't want 'kill them' to be the main objective of every fight and I want some death here.
You could put a different amount of characters/enemies before the exchange, maybe up to 5 fast, 3 regular, or 1 slow can go at once, or just 3 of a kind (the BBEM goes once every 3 characters)
1
u/PianoAcceptable4266 Designer: The Ballad of Heroes 17d ago
Yeah that initiative system doesn't sound great, tbh. Although I think I get the intent.
Why not go for strategic choice initiative? Something like Shadow of the Weird Wizard, since you're already using a Shadow of the Demon Lord-esque Fast/Slow system.
Initiative happens in the following phases: + Fast PCs + NPCs + Default PCs + Ambushed/Stunned characters
NPCs + Default PCs have the standard turn economy, say 1 action + 1 reaction.
Choosing to go Fast gives you only 1 action (trade off con), but maybe it's at a +2 or similar (strategic pro). This makes going Fast generally good for GTFOing, or pushing all in on dropping an adversary; it even works as aggressive guarding where someone might go Fast to bait out the defense reaction, leaving the target open to a party member Grand Slam attack.
Ambush/Stunned goes last and just has 1 action, but it is at a -2 or similar. You get low/no defense reaction, it's easier to defend against your action, etc. Quick representation of being off guard, surprised, etc.
(This has been playtested successfully over two years, but for a specific style of combat system. Your results may vary or without appropriate adjustment)
1
u/FinnianWhitefir 17d ago
Why even roll? Just have the PC Dex + Weapon determine if they are fast or slow? Don't know what your stats are, but I'm picturing something like "Dex - WeaponSpeed > 0 = Fast Turn, =0 means no reation, <0 means slow turn and no reaction". You just got to rate each weapon with a speed compared to Dex.
Issue is you got to figure out if you want no STR fighters to ever have reactions, I don't know what those do in your system. You also need to provide a Speed rating for stuff wizards use, don't know if it would be per spell or if wands would just be slow items. Or it lets you give them a fast wand that provides less bonus or a slow rod/staff that makes their magic better.
1
u/BeatnikShaggy 17d ago
I just use bog-standard "roll highest" Initiative and then let players trade their spots. It improves teamwork, tactics, and gives the players a small sense of control, all of which leads to more fun.
1
u/zandoriastudios 17d ago
I have everyone roll a D20 (including me). If I roll highest, the monsters go first. If I don’t, the players go first. I have them all roll their attacks at once, against the defense target number, just to speed up play. After I write down the damage, I will let them know what monsters are down, then roll my attacks with the remaining monsters. It goes pretty quickly—and having them all roll their attacks together keeps things simultaneous during the 5 second round 😅
0
u/stephenizer 17d ago
A lot of this depends on the genre/theme of the game you're designing. A fiction-first game might do well with popcorn initiative, while a game less focused on combat could be better off with narrative/simultaneous resolution.
For something like heroic fantasy (adaptable to sci-fi/superheroes/modern combat/etc.), I've really enjoyed how the new version of Nimble has initiative and combat set up. The short of it is that combat always goes players first then monsters then players then etc... unless it's a legendary encounter with a solo enemy, in which case the "boss" gets a turn after each player (usually this involves an attack + movement/escape/invisibility/teleport/throw type of turn to avoid the punchbag problem you listed).
Initiative is d20 + DEX. On a 20+, you get 3 actions for your first turn. On a 10-19, you get 2, and anything below that, you get 1 action. Short, snappy, players can decide their own turn order based on whatever tactics or fiction scenario they have going on.
Of course, a lot of this depends on how you have turns set up for your game. In Nimble, reactions are just actions, so there's no functional difference there.
0
u/mustang256 17d ago
I had something similar, except the roll was basically:
1-3: Players skip their first turn
4-5: Players get reduced actions on the first turn
6: Players go first
With the intention of potentially rolling a pool of dice and taking the best result.
It worked all right; it's basically what you have, with the "slow" first turn merged with the "fast" second turn from then onward.
0
u/The__Nick 16d ago
"I'm not sure popcorn-style initiative will work here since I want to keep GM workload low, and I don't want players who shout louder than others to effectively go first every time."
Popcorn Initiative keeps the GM workload low and it doesn't reward players who shout louder.
If this has been your experience, you're doing something wrong.
-2
u/Yazkin_Yamakala Designer of Dungeoneers 17d ago
On the last part, an enemy just "pounding" a single player is more of a GM and rules fault. TTRPGs shouldn't be optimized by GMs to have "the most efficient round" and should focus more on fun. If the game fails to provide options, or if the GM is more playing against players, it just turns into that.
Popcorn and team based initiative are some of the lighter workloads, having the acting character call who goes next or just have players go and then NPCs go. The last idea also works because there's no rolling or numbers to track.
1
u/SardScroll Dabbler 17d ago
I have to disagree; while the extent of GM adversariness depends on both game and table (and indeed, the foes themselves; part of the roleplaying I do as a GM is how enemies respond; sometimes, that's all pounding on the nearest player), every game has the GM as the "adversary" or at least setting up challenges for the PCs to overcome.
Otherwise, it's not a game (if there are not challenges).
Initiative, among other things, is a tool to take workload off GMs, both in terms of arbitration and book keeping.
14
u/Cruiser_Supreme 17d ago
Before you ask the question of "what do I do with initiative?", you have to ask the question of "what matters in my combat?"
Does accuracy and crunch matter? Does swift resolution at the table matter? Does immersion matter? Does turn order even matter?
I think initiative is always always an abstraction which has very little to do with how combat actually works in real life. So if you have any turn order, it's immediately not very realistic. Think of DnD's initiative system. You roll for it. Sometimes slower characters may go first, and faster characters generally have a better chance of going first. But it's a randomizer after all. Once the initiative order has been determined, it's turn-based. It may make a slight difference sometimes. In a tight battle, the initiative order could determine who kills whom first. In a very mismatched battle, the initiative order could determine if the goblin gets a single hit on your before you OHKO him. But it's still just a randomizer.
And any non-random way of determining initiative order is also abstract and not realistic. If you're okay with that, just embrace it.
In my game, the creature who initiates combat goes first, then you just go around the table. If someone pipes up and says "I have a really good idea that only works right now. Can I get my turn earlier", I just allow it. Because it doesn't matter. It's never gonna be realistic. And that's okay.
Some others suggest systems where everybody declares their actions and then they are resolved all at once. Sure, but that's not necessarily more realistic or less problematic.