Rolling for initiative is such an iconic part of RPG. Almost every RPG has one, or at least a version of it to know who's acting first in the situation or encounter. With the various initiative systems out there, I think...
1)...we should scrap it and let fiction decide whose turn is it.
Unlike turn-based video games, we don't need an indicator when a risky encounter is about to happen. The fact that we use a "roll for initiative when we encounter something" system in our games like a Pokemon trainer who just encountered a wild pokemon puts people into the notion that combat has to happen. At the very least, the other side is hostile or not on the same side as the players, so our actions has to become turn-like to facilitate the exchange of blows or actions. But most of the time, the group knows who should really act first due to how the situation played out. Sometimes rolling for initiative kills that moment, and puts things into a turn-based video game perspective.
Powered by the Apocalypse games, Forged in the Dark games, and Macchiato Monsters have been lax in terms of turn order in their game systems, and have showed us that when players want to do something, GMs don't have to shackle them with a turn sequence. When their opportunity comes, they let them conquer it by making their actions known and happen. And when they fail they don't just waster their turn, it also creates complication that they have to recover from.
2)...we should have a turn-sequence on the whole session, not just during combat/hostile encounters.
Honestly there are players who always take the spotlight. Those players who always say what they want to do, which often drowns out the more timid players. And there are also times that no one wants to step up and act first, since they are always reacting to what other players are gonna do.
If you put the whole session in a turn sequence, you'll give everyone a chance in the spotlight, giving everyone a chance in controlling the situation. At the same time, everyone gets to properly think of their actions at each step of the session, since they can anticipate if it's their turn to make a move in the combat, or have a shot in the conversation they are taking.
Index Card RPG puts this into its core system, where players are always acting in turns. Online sessions thru Roll20 or Skype also utilize this method so that voice communication is more solid throughout the game.
3)...we should make it more dynamic, not just the same turn sequence each round.
Dangerous encounters isn't always something you can grasp your mind into. Sometimes a situation gets too overwhelming and we just want to make the most of our moments.
Encounter tension will be more concise if you make each turn important by letting them know they might not have the same initiative count next round. That way, players will focus less on anticipating their enemies' and their co-players' moves, and focus more into putting their own opportunity into something tangible now.
Games like Knave, Maze Rats, and an optional rule of Lamentations of the Flame Princess do this, making players reroll initiative each round. Some games are a bit strict, like Cypher System, who only makes players reroll initiative if the situation or scene changes.
And then there's Troika who takes it to another level, doing draw-a-token initiative. Each character involve gets initiative tokens (players get 2, henchmen/mooks get 1, strong opponents can get more). GM gets an "end of round" token, and put them all in one bag. Each turn, the GM draw a new token, indicating whose turn it is. If the end of round is drawn, all tokens go back to the bag and new round begins. The tension that you may not actually get a turn in each round puts people in their toes.
4)... we should keep it static, and give the players the ability to control the situation.
People have been playing the same "roll initiative, act from highest to lowest result" system for many years, and it has worked well for many years and many groups. Some systems shake it up by doing a side initiative, making it a player vs GM roll and letting players decide who goes first between them.
Whatever the case, making the players aware of their opportunity in each encounter gives them the chance to make a more solid choice in their actions. It can make them tactical and anticipatory, which itself creates tension for the table but not out of their control. Combat can be approached like a puzzle, in that they often have the opportunity and abilities to bring this encounter to a finish.
D&D games from different editions utilize this, as well as most mainstream RPG systems (13th Age, 2d20 systems, etc) . Shadow of the Demon Lord and Into the Odd use side initiatives, although each one plays it out differently.
Sharp Swords & Sinister Spells deserves mention that initiative is based on HD (the higher level/hit die creature goes first, going down) and you only roll when you are tied HD with someone. Static initiative that puts stronger creatures in the driver seat, wowza.
So what is my point in this?
Initiative is easy to tinker, but shapes the tension of the session. Maybe your game will benefit from changing it, maybe it won't. But don't sleep on it, because it's powerful enough to change a game without inventing or adopting a new resolution system or a new sub-system.
 |
| A quick google search tells you what I'm talking about. Be kind to yourself and do it. |
1)...we should scrap it and let fiction decide whose turn is it.
Unlike turn-based video games, we don't need an indicator when a risky encounter is about to happen. The fact that we use a "roll for initiative when we encounter something" system in our games like a Pokemon trainer who just encountered a wild pokemon puts people into the notion that combat has to happen. At the very least, the other side is hostile or not on the same side as the players, so our actions has to become turn-like to facilitate the exchange of blows or actions. But most of the time, the group knows who should really act first due to how the situation played out. Sometimes rolling for initiative kills that moment, and puts things into a turn-based video game perspective.
Powered by the Apocalypse games, Forged in the Dark games, and Macchiato Monsters have been lax in terms of turn order in their game systems, and have showed us that when players want to do something, GMs don't have to shackle them with a turn sequence. When their opportunity comes, they let them conquer it by making their actions known and happen. And when they fail they don't just waster their turn, it also creates complication that they have to recover from.
2)...we should have a turn-sequence on the whole session, not just during combat/hostile encounters.
Honestly there are players who always take the spotlight. Those players who always say what they want to do, which often drowns out the more timid players. And there are also times that no one wants to step up and act first, since they are always reacting to what other players are gonna do.
If you put the whole session in a turn sequence, you'll give everyone a chance in the spotlight, giving everyone a chance in controlling the situation. At the same time, everyone gets to properly think of their actions at each step of the session, since they can anticipate if it's their turn to make a move in the combat, or have a shot in the conversation they are taking.
Index Card RPG puts this into its core system, where players are always acting in turns. Online sessions thru Roll20 or Skype also utilize this method so that voice communication is more solid throughout the game.
3)...we should make it more dynamic, not just the same turn sequence each round.
Dangerous encounters isn't always something you can grasp your mind into. Sometimes a situation gets too overwhelming and we just want to make the most of our moments.
Encounter tension will be more concise if you make each turn important by letting them know they might not have the same initiative count next round. That way, players will focus less on anticipating their enemies' and their co-players' moves, and focus more into putting their own opportunity into something tangible now.
Games like Knave, Maze Rats, and an optional rule of Lamentations of the Flame Princess do this, making players reroll initiative each round. Some games are a bit strict, like Cypher System, who only makes players reroll initiative if the situation or scene changes.
And then there's Troika who takes it to another level, doing draw-a-token initiative. Each character involve gets initiative tokens (players get 2, henchmen/mooks get 1, strong opponents can get more). GM gets an "end of round" token, and put them all in one bag. Each turn, the GM draw a new token, indicating whose turn it is. If the end of round is drawn, all tokens go back to the bag and new round begins. The tension that you may not actually get a turn in each round puts people in their toes.
4)... we should keep it static, and give the players the ability to control the situation.
People have been playing the same "roll initiative, act from highest to lowest result" system for many years, and it has worked well for many years and many groups. Some systems shake it up by doing a side initiative, making it a player vs GM roll and letting players decide who goes first between them.
Whatever the case, making the players aware of their opportunity in each encounter gives them the chance to make a more solid choice in their actions. It can make them tactical and anticipatory, which itself creates tension for the table but not out of their control. Combat can be approached like a puzzle, in that they often have the opportunity and abilities to bring this encounter to a finish.
D&D games from different editions utilize this, as well as most mainstream RPG systems (13th Age, 2d20 systems, etc) . Shadow of the Demon Lord and Into the Odd use side initiatives, although each one plays it out differently.
Sharp Swords & Sinister Spells deserves mention that initiative is based on HD (the higher level/hit die creature goes first, going down) and you only roll when you are tied HD with someone. Static initiative that puts stronger creatures in the driver seat, wowza.
So what is my point in this?
Initiative is easy to tinker, but shapes the tension of the session. Maybe your game will benefit from changing it, maybe it won't. But don't sleep on it, because it's powerful enough to change a game without inventing or adopting a new resolution system or a new sub-system.
Comments
Post a Comment