Thoughts on Initiative Rules in RPGs

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
The only rule I've ever seen end an argument in role-playing is Rule Zero i.e. the GM's edict supersedes all. Otherwise, I've seen players argue in spite of the rules, stating (sometimes quite reasonably) that the rules are unrealistic. Rules don't stop arguments. That's where all the social stuff comes into play. GM-player trust isn't just, as you put it, "a good thing"; how would you even play without it? Why would you even play without it?

I suggest you're committing the fallacy of the excluded middle here. No, rules don't stop all arguments any more than laws against murder stop all murder -- but if we didn't have them, you'd have a lot more of what they're in place to prevent. (At least, my typical game groups would, as would most I've seen.)

I note that no rules-light, let-the-GM-resolve-it system I've ever read has ever been so light as to suggest that the GM should simply decide who wins a fight and how badly they were hurt in the process. Even if you trust the GM to always be fair and generous on such rulings, that's simply not any fun. Figuring out how to exploit the rules in order to win has always been a big part of the RPG enjoyment factor.

The problem is that you're never going to cover every situation, and unless you're experienced in the type of combat in question, you're just guessing.

Again, fallacy of the excluded middle. No, you can't cover every situation, but covering as many as is practical where it will generally forestall arguments -- and again, note that because some players will always argue doesn't mean good clear rules don't prevent more arguments than they create -- is generally, I think, a good thing. And yes, sometimes those rules will cut against the players, but the key is that it's the rules cutting against the players, not the GM's judgement call.

I actually agree with you that realism in general is a distraction rather than a practical goal -- as you say, no ruleset can be perfect in that regard, much less even near it while still being playable -- and that verisimilitude is a better target than realism. But even the verisimilitude, in my view, should yield to the ultimate target of clear, playable rules that make it consistent and objective as to who gets to go when. Even if players in a particular group can be trusted to accept negative GM rulings without argument, in my experience, being able to point to a clear rule always makes it go down easier -- it's one of those things that it's a lot easier to have and not need than to need and not have.
 
I think both of you are discussing different approaches to rulesets, I think it just comes down to preferences and taste.

I prefer simple systems that get out of the way of play and assume that the players and GM are more collaborative and reasonable but understand others prefer more detailed systems in an attempt to avoid confusion and rules lawyering. In my experience though Rules Lawyers prefer and benefit the most from systems with lots of rules, not fewer of them.
 
I note that no rules-light, let-the-GM-resolve-it system I've ever read has ever been so light as to suggest that the GM should simply decide who wins a fight and how badly they were hurt in the process. Even if you trust the GM to always be fair and generous on such rulings, that's simply not any fun.
While I haven't seen any published material with that, it is how I got into RPGs. I have GM-ed like that. We had a lot of fun.

To my understanding, that was how the creators ran KULT, but as they thought a published RPG needs rules/mechanics they tacked on one they had for another RPG.

Figuring out how to exploit the rules in order to win has always been a big part of the RPG enjoyment factor.
And that is something I am completely uninterested in myself, to the point of impeding my fun if it shows up at a table I'm at. That doesn't make it wrong, just incompatible with my gaming style.

So it is just a matter of preferences, and there will never be a system that will fit us all. However, there will be systems that better fits a certain preference than others.
 
I suggest you're committing the fallacy of the excluded middle here. No, rules don't stop all arguments any more than laws against murder stop all murder -- but if we didn't have them, you'd have a lot more of what they're in place to prevent.
Who is really excluding the middle, now? I never suggested there should be no rules. However, I do claim that rules never solve arguments; people do.
I note that no rules-light, let-the-GM-resolve-it system I've ever read has ever been so light as to suggest that the GM should simply decide who wins a fight and how badly they were hurt in the process.
Amber Diceless comes very close to exactly that. In fact, I'd say that it does - the rest are guidelines for the GM to use in making this judgement.
No, you can't cover every situation, but covering as many as is practical where it will generally forestall arguments...
Again, I'm not excluding any middles. We just disagree about what is "practical." Also, we disagree about purpose. I don't see the rules as existing to keep my players from complaining. I see them as a way of helping me to decide what happens.

Have you had a lot of problems with argumentative gamers? Why not just eject them? If the only thing keeping my players from arguing with me are the rules, then we need to start fresh.
I think both of you are discussing different approaches to rulesets, I think it just comes down to preferences and taste.
Absolutely! The main reason I'm bothering to continue is because my interlocutor here is stating things in very broad terms. For instance:
The GM's judgement is meant to be a backup and support for the rules, not an all-purpose replacement for them.
That's his style. Well, it's definitely a style that I do not favor, but that's not the point of my argument. My point in this particular discussion that these purposes that S Stephen Tannhauser ascribes to these rules are his and his alone, and the rules are not necessary for preventing player arguments. I don't even think they are particularly useful for that. In fact...
In my experience though Rules Lawyers prefer and benefit the most from systems with lots of rules, not fewer of them.
I agree but, if anything, more complex rules means more complex arguments by and with Rules Lawyers.
 
For basic D&D group initiative, with the missiles/movement/etc ordering, does one entire team go through the entire set of actions -- or is it like... first the winning team of initiative makes their movement, then the other side, then the first side fires missiles, then the other side fires missiles...

I like the idea of this system, but it seems weird with handling movement and other normally "contested" actions between combatants.
 
For basic D&D group initiative, with the missiles/movement/etc ordering, does one entire team go through the entire set of actions -- or is it like... first the winning team of initiative makes their movement, then the other side, then the first side fires missiles, then the other side fires missiles...
The former. I like the idea of phased combat as well, but I can't figure out which edition/retroclone I've seen it in.
 
Ah, I see.

What do you guys think of Mike Mearls 5e initiative variant that involves speed factor? Based on what you're doing (movement, attack, something else), you roll a certain die for initiative, and the lower you get, the earlier you go. So for instance, a dagger might have you roll a d4, and a greatsword might have you roll a d10. I've seen variants that just had you roll the weapon's damage die outright.
 
The former. I like the idea of phased combat as well, but I can't figure out which edition/retroclone I've seen it in.


It's the default in MSH. I believe it was an optional system in AD&D 1e.
 
Ah, I see.

What do you guys think of Mike Mearls 5e initiative variant that involves speed factor? Based on what you're doing (movement, attack, something else), you roll a certain die for initiative, and the lower you get, the earlier you go. So for instance, a dagger might have you roll a d4, and a greatsword might have you roll a d10. I've seen variants that just had you roll the weapon's damage die outright.
I love the concept of it, but I think it needs a system designed around it, rather than being retrofitted onto standard D&D. A "lower is better" subsystem doesn't quite mix with the rest of 5e's design, either.
 
The former. I like the idea of phased combat as well, but I can't figure out which edition/retroclone I've seen it in.
I've seen similar in Tunnels and Trolls, and Fantasy Trip as far as OSRish games go too.
 
For phased combat, how do you handle weirdness that results, like the following --

Let's say you're an archer. Normally in the phased combat, missile attacks come first and movement second. But what if you need to move closer to fire? Are you basically just SOL that turn? Because by the time you move close enough to fire, your chance to fire has already passed?
 
For phased combat, how do you handle weirdness that results, like the following --

Let's say you're an archer. Normally in the phased combat, missile attacks come first and movement second. But what if you need to move closer to fire? Are you basically just SOL that turn? Because by the time you move close enough to fire, your chance to fire has already passed?

I don't know from D&D, but I would handle that as a combined action
 
Sovereign Stone (the original one, not d20) had only the skill roll - in combat usually a weapon attack but other rolls like magic or movement like "getting to the door first" were possible as well).
High roller went first.
The low roller could either abort and parry (doing a re-roll with hopes for a result higher than the attack) or "tough it out" and let his initial roll be his attack.
Thoughts: The skill value doubles as initiative. You act faster if you do something you are proficient in. I like that.

Troika has a most unusual initiative system (but I have still to see it in play).
Every player has two tokens (coins, colored dice, whatever). The GM has tokens for the monsters. All go into a bag (or a stack). The GM draws one token - and that character acts. If it's a monster token the GM can decide which individual monster acts. He may choose one particular monster over and over if a new monster token is drawn. It is possible that one monster uses all monster tokens while its colleagues just watch.
Also in the bag is a "turn end" token. If that one is drawn the turn immediately ends - all tokens go back into the bag, new turn starts. So characters have no guarantee that they can act in any given round! (Especially if they decide to delay their action and put their token back into the bag!)
Thoughts: Sounds like a fun system that captures battlefield chaos. I'd like to try it one day.
A weird feature that Troika is a Fighting Fantasy hack:
Fighting Fantasy works like this, too; everyone in a melee rolls, winner inflicts damage.
So if a character gets stockpiled by many attacks (whether from the same or different monsters), they effectively get more chances to do damage as well. And it also means that monsters that are "just watching" while their front rank fighter is more active get their chance to do damage if they are attacked by a player!

But my favourite initiative is this, from my own heartbreaker:
Only the players make an initiative check (a roll-under Dex check).
Succeeding characters act before the GM characters and monsters, all others follow after the monsters. (Some creatures have special abilities that override this - zombies are always last, some very fast creatures are always first.)
Thoughts: This captures a bit of the group initiative that I love in Basic D&D but still honors character ability. A bunch of players act together and sort out their individual acting order among themselves.
I posted this system on the 'site and the 'net and more forums whenever "favourite initiative systems" came up (the earliest I found was Feb 2008). Since then some systems have been published that use this type of initiative (Black Hack comes to mind).
 
All this talk of initiative keeps reminding me how artificial and slow it is. I look forward to my next chance to run an initiative-less combat.
I posted this system on the 'site and the 'net and more forums whenever "favourite initiative systems" came up (the earliest I found was Feb 2008). Since then some systems have been published that use this type of initiative (Black Hack comes to mind).
Mothership does the same thing. It might be your influence, but it might also be many people converging on the same good idea. Rules have become lighter in the last decade or two and this seems like a very common sense idea if you want something fast and reasonable. I'm not saying it's obvious, though. It's an excellent approach.
 
Mothership does the same thing. It might be your influence,
Oh no, that was not what I was implying.
but it might also be many people converging on the same good idea.
That's what I find more plausible.
An ability check is one of the oldest mechanics of RPGs.
Using them straight for initiative was an idea that was just lying around.
 
In Golden Heroes each side rolls a ten-sider and the higher roll wins initiative. Where it gets interesting is that the winners of initiative gets from 1 to 4 frames (depending on how much they won the roll by) where that side can act before the losers gets an opportunity to respond by using their frames, and then the winners gets to use the remainder of their frames after that. Winning initiative by a lot can mean your side could have up to eight frames in which to take actions while the other side only gets four frames in between. You roll Initiative again at the start of each round.

Quibble: the most frames anyone can win on initiative is 4, or all of their frames.


I recently picked up Golden Heroes in an eBay splurge and it would be interesting to see how this initiative system plays out. Given how certain actions require 2 consecutive frames to execute, I can imagine times you wouldn't particularly want to win 1 frame of initiative before your opponents, or at the very least it might change your plans. Other times the 1 frame might be nice, say, to activate a power and use the two consecutive frames later for a full action, etc.

PCs have the option of delaying a single frame only in cases such as these. Non-PCs must take a 1-frame 1/2 action, or lose any frames they do not use.


Re-reading the Star Wars 1e rules, I'm struck by the simplicity and innovation of the initiative rules. Technically, there isn't initiative, but when it becomes important, the "to-hit" roll is also used to determine order of action. I love this type of economy, though it's usually used to merge the "to-hit" and "damage" rolls (which tbh I find more internally logical). While I'm normally not a fan of the "starting over" feeling of rolling damage AFTER a high "to-hit" roll, this doesn't bother me as much. Probably because I'm a sucker for economy in dice rolling, especially a single roll that is read in multiple ways to yield different results for different things.
 
Last edited:
Ah, I see.

What do you guys think of Mike Mearls 5e initiative variant that involves speed factor? Based on what you're doing (movement, attack, something else), you roll a certain die for initiative, and the lower you get, the earlier you go. So for instance, a dagger might have you roll a d4, and a greatsword might have you roll a d10. I've seen variants that just had you roll the weapon's damage die outright.
I played in a campaign using Oubliettes, Sorcery + Reavers that was built around a system where initiative is based on what you are doing, so you roll a d4 when firing a bow, a larger dice when casting a spell etc. Worked well in a game based on a patchwork of neat sub-systems.

If I'm going to use an initiative other than order of 'to-hit' rolls or loose declaration I prefer something baroque - King of Dungeons has initiative where the 1st round you use WIS, 2nd you use DEX, then it's CON from then on.
 
One of the more interesting initiative systems I've seen is the one from Shinobigami.

You don't roll. Everyone chooses a side on a d6 puts on the table with their hand over it and reveals it at the same time. Some powers let you put down two dice and then choose which one you want to use after everyone reveals.

You go in initiative order from highest to lowest. But the higher your initiative is, the more chance you have to fumble on your turn. Additionally, range is determined by the difference between your initiative and the initiative of your target (this is a game about anime ninjas, distance is kind of abstract because at any second you could be 3 feet or 8 miles from each other cause you are going at super speed).

So the whole initiative thing is about trying to outread your opponent, and how much you will risk to go "faster".

It turns initiative into an interesting decision rather than just randomness.
 
It’s a convention I dislike in most RPGs, to be honest, that the Initiative rules dictate that any combat has to be done by the administrative task of writing down the order of initiative. I much prefer systems that do alternatives to Roll+Initiative bonus mechanics.

RuneQuest, Champions and GURPS had a calculated approach, which is someway of an improvement for me - where you simply count down the order and players just react when it is their turn, but this can still be complicated.

Pendragon doesn’t have initiative at all - its integrated into the attack roll and if you win, it means you got your swing in first. MHR had the framed scenes, where each player simply nominate the next to act, and I think Fate rules have included the same in the most recent updates. I like these and have tried to implement similar concepts in other RPGs.
 
I've never played a game where you have to write down Initiative.
 
I've never played a game where you have to write down Initiative.
D&D?

As in: Fred, Sheila, Andy and Greg all roll initiative for their characters - 11, 6, 19, 14 respectively. The GM rolls for the goblins - collectively 12. The order is Andy, Greg, Goblins, Fred, Sheila - which is written down on scrap paper, probably using the character's names, to record the order of who goes when? I mean, you don’t have to write it down, but it certainly helps you remember.
 
D&D?

As in: Fred, Sheila, Andy and Greg all roll initiative for their characters - 11, 6, 19, 14 respectively. The GM rolls for the goblins - collectively 12. The order is Andy, Greg, Goblins, Fred, Sheila - which is written down on scrap paper, probably using the character's names, to record the order of who goes when? I mean, you don’t have to write it down, but it certainly helps you remember.

oh we always just called out our turn from a count
 
oh we always just called out our turn from a count
I get that. Either way, as a GM, it’s not my favourite approach. It does require some trust from the GM to the players (that they will be honest in what they rolled).

In other ‘countdown' systems like those used in Feng Shui or Savage Worlds, there is more transparency because they use things like markers on ladders and cards, respectively. In Champions or Runequest or GURPS, there is more transparency because the scores are fixed and written on the sheets.
 
As far as I can tell, none have yet mentioned second based initiative in this thread, like featured in games such as Hackmaster or Phoenix Command.

Then there is Scion, at least, and perhaps Streetfighter too (I forget at the moment) where the moves have a cooldown period, which are pretty much same things but under different names.

I've toyed with the idea of making a system of my on based on some of these ideas, because the turn based things seem somewhat basic and clunky for some of my itches, verisimilitude (yay, a buzzword from yesteryears! :clown:) being one of them.
 
As far as I can tell, none have yet mentioned second based initiative in this thread, like featured in games such as Hackmaster or Phoenix Command.
Didn't anyone mention GURPS:shock:?

I've toyed with the idea of making a system of my on based on some of these ideas, because the turn based things seem somewhat basic and clunky for some of my itches, verisimilitude (yay, a buzzword from yesteryears! :clown:) being one of them.
You, too, eh:shade:?
 
B/X combat initiative sounds goofy on paper but my doubts were blown away in actual play. It is a ton of fun, grabs player attention, and can be incredibly decisive. My players tend to stay in a formation and rely on mercenaries for a battle line to help weather a disastrous initiative or surprise roll. I strongly prefer it to the 5e system where the initiative order is fairly inconsequential especially as players level.

I also very much liked Savage Worlds initiative and how certain perks effected initiative.
 
In Shadow of the Demon Lord, the PCs always go first in their phase. You choose to go in the Fast phase (take one action) or the Slow phase (two actions). I didn't think I would like it, but it worked well in play. Some monsters are constructed to take advantage of the system.
 
Yeah, something in the range between Black Hack and SotDL is my happy place, with some rules for potential extra actions that come at a steep cost.
 
Ah, I see.

What do you guys think of Mike Mearls 5e initiative variant that involves speed factor? Based on what you're doing (movement, attack, something else), you roll a certain die for initiative, and the lower you get, the earlier you go. So for instance, a dagger might have you roll a d4, and a greatsword might have you roll a d10. I've seen variants that just had you roll the weapon's damage die outright.
Greyhawk Initiative? I thought it was an interesting idea but probably not really workable in the context of 5E as it currently exists (maybe if you cut it back to basic).

The different die for weapon types was an optional add on to the system (and in my opinion a bad idea - it makes no sense for a person with a dagger to be faster than one with a pole-arm - reach trumps lightness and while a game doesn't need to model reality, it's a bad idea to be opposite to reality).

Basically you rolled a D6 if you wanted to move - and different die depending on what else you might intend to do. Eg - ranged was a D4 - melee was D6 and a spell was a D12. I think Bonus actions were an additional D6

It was interesting as it added a whole additonal tactical dimension to combat - the group had to coordinate what they were going to do, then initiative was rolled and actions were resolved from lowest to highest. Some people reported that it made combat faster - I'm not sure it really did that for us - but it did make the part of combat where you are not involved and waiting for your turn a lot quicker - so that part was a win. There was also a variant where the spells start being cast on the initiative and don't finish until an additional number equal to their level, allowing for some old school interruption.

There were a few crinks in regard to movement - basically if you didn't roll a die for movement and you were a melee character you may be left unable to act. This wouldn't be an issue if turns were short and sharp and came around again quickly, but it is an issue when bolted onto 5E which is designed to try and ensure everyone does something significant on their turn. It also probably could have done with some free movement (like half your movement at least, if you didn't choose to roll a die for movement) - but the fact that it feels a little like a game of rock paper scissors was part of the appeal.

Ultimately I came to the conclusion that it was a initiative system that really needed the game designed around it. A lot of things just felt weird, or that they could work better if that was the case. If you can interrupt spellcasting more easily then spells can actually be a little bit nastier. If feels weird to use this system and then have multi-attacks working the same way. (If writing a hack I'd probably put in something where Fighters get their additional attack either at the start or end of the round against anyone who is adjacent to them). Basically though, by moving so much of the tactical element of the game into initiative, you can take it out of other places and classes don't need to be so busy - and therefore make it less of a problem if you do pick the wrong action and are left unable to act.

This would be a good system for a Five Torches Deep style hack - or maybe Castles and Crusades.
 
Last edited:
For 5E, my group adopted an approach similar to the one used in the Star Trek Adventures 2d20 game.

Player side goes first, unless there is some compelling reason for the GM side to go first. The players decide who among them will go. Then you alternate until each participant has gone, and then the round ends and you start again.

It’s a lot easier to track and it gives the players some real teamwork options that wouldn’t exist otherwise.

The only quirk is that certain spells or effects that “end at the end of your next turn” can now last less than or more than a full round. But I find that plays into the strategy. Should the caster go now, or keep maintaining the spell? That kind of thing.

It also gives the GM some options for strategy, which can help dial up or down the difficulty as needed.
 
For 5E, my group adopted an approach similar to the one used in the Star Trek Adventures 2d20 game.

Player side goes first, unless there is some compelling reason for the GM side to go first. The players decide who among them will go. Then you alternate until each participant has gone, and then the round ends and you start again.

It’s a lot easier to track and it gives the players some real teamwork options that wouldn’t exist otherwise.

The only quirk is that certain spells or effects that “end at the end of your next turn” can now last less than or more than a full round. But I find that plays into the strategy. Should the caster go now, or keep maintaining the spell? That kind of thing.

It also gives the GM some options for strategy, which can help dial up or down the difficulty as needed.
I've basically done the same, except after the first round it just stays in the same order - avoids the problem with spells and is just quicker. The best thing it avoids that whole point where the game stops and everyone rolls initiative and it means that if someone decides to start a combat everything flows into combat much more naturally.
 
For 5E, my group adopted an approach similar to the one used in the Star Trek Adventures 2d20 game.

Player side goes first, unless there is some compelling reason for the GM side to go first. The players decide who among them will go. Then you alternate until each participant has gone, and then the round ends and you start again.

It’s a lot easier to track and it gives the players some real teamwork options that wouldn’t exist otherwise.

The only quirk is that certain spells or effects that “end at the end of your next turn” can now last less than or more than a full round. But I find that plays into the strategy. Should the caster go now, or keep maintaining the spell? That kind of thing.

It also gives the GM some options for strategy, which can help dial up or down the difficulty as needed.
This was the approach I saw in Marvel Heroic Roleplaying and I like it.

The disadvantage in D&D is a lot of the roles and subsystems rely upon the unpredictability of the Initiative order. Rogues, for example, get a huge advantage in terms of sneak or surprise attacks if they go first - so without the random roll, it becomes unfair to everybody else. because of reasons like this, I find it pretty difficult to divorce the Initiative system from D&D as it stands.

In other games, particularly super heroic ones, I prefer ‘frames’ of resolution - as you describe, where players (and GMs to a degree) simply decide who goes first, then that player nominates the next person and so on till everybody has had a go. In terms of the GM based characters, I try to integrate them as PC obstacles in each player turn, rather than discrete extra players that the GM has to control on an equal footing with the PCs - so they don’t get ‘turns’ as such. The ‘initiative’ in this sense simply goes with the result of attack. If a character is successful, then it means they acted faster or more efficiently. If they weren’t it means the opposition were.

For other games, I just work on order of Dexterity (like CoC) - in fact, I sometimes ask the players to simply sit around the table in order of Dexterity and then ask them what they want to do in turn. High Dex characters can defer their actions to see what others want to do first (and then react before them).
 
I've basically done the same, except after the first round it just stays in the same order - avoids the problem with spells and is just quicker. The best thing it avoids that whole point where the game stops and everyone rolls initiative and it means that if someone decides to start a combat everything flows into combat much more naturally.

I agree about the flow. We just move right into combat without this long pause to roll and track initiative.

I’m not sure if keeping the same initiative each round helps, though. It’d require tracking during the first round. And although it would make duration of spell effects more consistent, I think that’s an interesting strategic element.

This was the approach I saw in Marvel Heroic Roleplaying and I like it.

The disadvantage in D&D is a lot of the roles and subsystems rely upon the unpredictability of the Initiative order. Rogues, for example, get a huge advantage in terms of sneak or surprise attacks if they go first - so without the random roll, it becomes unfair to everybody else. because of reasons like this, I find it pretty difficult to divorce the Initiative system from D&D as it stands.

How do you mean it’s unfair to everyone else? I suppose of everyone wanted to go first maybe, but typically I’ve seen my group make these decisions from a tactical standpoint. So a rogue going first is going to be a strong possibility if he has abilities that would enhance his first round actions.
 
I’m not a huge fan of how initiative is handled in the 5e campaign I’m playing in. Rolling each round AND using the speed modifier variant in the DMG. Weird combination...

edit: definitely keeps things dynamic and unpredictable though!
 
I used to be a big fan of speed factors and reach and all manner of Initiative mods and whatnot. Anything in the name of verisimilitude, right? Ah, to be young again. I am no longer that gamer. Gimme one roll, and few mods, any more than that and I get grumpy. I'm quite happy for the unpredictable part being who gets hit in the face with a spiked flail.
 
I prefer games with simultaneous combat (Pendragon), then probably group initiative (B/X), and third stat-based (WIS in 1st Round, DEX in 2nd Round, CON in 3rd+ rounds) especially if damage reduces stat scores.
 
I used to be a big fan of speed factors and reach and all manner of Initiative mods and whatnot. Anything in the name of verisimilitude, right? Ah, to be young again. I am no longer that gamer. Gimme one roll, and few mods, any more than that and I get grumpy. I'm quite happy for the unpredictable part being who gets hit in the face with a spiked flail.
Yeah, I can relate. Granular physics simulation as seen in the 80/90s was the thing I realized I needed less as I get older and time becomes more precious.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top