What is the BEST initiative system in TTRPGs?

[@dandmadeeasy]

What’s your favorite initiative system? Some variations on my system if you prefer not to roll before the game: - Use marching order for initiative - Set up player initiative without rolling, but try to balance who gets to go first across combats - The most prepared player gets to go first Happy adventuring!

[@williamjohnston5315]

I think it depends on what you're trying to accomplish, what you're trying to get. Do you want a dynamic initiative that ebbs and flows each round? Maybe the SWADE system will fit. Maybe you're more of a roller- do you go with fixed initiative or something like Shadowrun where you're getting multiple actions. Maybe you forgo initiative entirely and play like a PbtA game? I disagree with the last decision because I have had players that didn't like it. I think a system I "really" personal like, a "jack of all trades" is used in the narrative Starfinder starship combat and I took it for PBP. A "popcorn" initiative where everyone gets a turn and the player (or GM) calls who goes next. It can be tactical while narratively sound and I've enjoyed my test of it. Plus it keeps players on their toes when toes!

[@benjamindrexler9635]

A few other RPGs had some wildly different initiative systems, usually centered around action-dependent initiative or simultaneous actions. Hero System breaks round into twelve steps, and then you divide twelve by your speed stat. If your speed is 4 then you get to take a turn every four steps of the round. If your speed is 6 you get to take a turn every two steps of the round. So high dexterity or high initiative characters take more turns than slower ones. Rune Quest broke each round into ten strike ranks. You Dexterity determined when you could start acting each round (so one character could begin moving on strike rank 3 while another had to wait until strike rank 4 or 5), and then your size and weapons would determine when you could land a melee attack (so longer weapons or longer arms would strike first, offset by very fast characters). Rune Quest also had everyone act simultaneously every round. The DM would decide what the enemies were going to do and then the players would declare their intended actions. You'd be pretty stuck to what you declared, and then you would play out the round. So if you wanted to go and bar the door before reinforcements arrived, but they came through just before you got there, you had already run over to the door. Need to cast a spell before the troll pulverizes you? Remember that more powerful spells take longer to cast!

[@dandmadeeasy]

Thanks for sharing! I did imagine that systems that simulate simultaneous combat must exist, but I hadn't come across any. Both systems sound interesting, though I don't much like the idea of certain characters taking more actions (or more appropriately more table time every round) than others. I like the idea of when you act being determined by what you're doing, though (I remember back to playing the old Baldur's Gate games with spell casting times). I also wonder how much admin is needed for the Rune Quest system - does it take a while in your experience?

[@benjamindrexler9635]

​@@dandmadeeasy Oh yeah, 2nd edition had some optional spellcasting times and weapons speeds. I remember an interview with a designer of 5th edition talking about using different dice for initiative based on your intended action. Rune Quest runs pretty well; rather than having to have every turn begin by deciding what you're going to do with your turn, those decisions all happen at the beginning of the round. Lumping all of those decisions together means you don't get to react quite as well to things that happen during that round, but neither do the monsters. So if everyone attacks and the healer takes a club to the noggin, you're stuck until the next round. But also, casting a paralysis spell on someone charging you can actually freeze their legs just a few feet before they reach you. For most gameplay it seems weird to have so many strike ranks, since the best Dex SRM regular people can get is never below 3, making the first few strike ranks irrelevant. But then you have to fight pixies or something with a Dex SRM of 1 and you realize that you are a slow, stupid giant, but if you ever land a hit on them they are toast.

[@dandmadeeasy]

@@benjamindrexler9635 so how often do things completely fail? If you're a healer, can you pre-plan, for example "I heal the closest ally that has been damaged by when I take my turn", or do you have to specify the target?

[@benjamindrexler9635]

@@dandmadeeasy The rules encourage the statements of intent to be fairly broad, like, "I'll wait for them to do something and have my sword and shield ready." So for your example it could be something like "I'm going to cast a healing spell." If you want to change your intention or add to it, you just have to delay an extra 3 strike ranks. Granted, when most melee attacks land on strike rank 7 or 8, that can be prohibitive. Ranged attacks and spells don't add your Size SRM, so those usually fire off much earlier.

[@RenegadeRolls]

One I've not played yet, but which sounds fascinating is the turn order system in Crown & Skull from Runehammer Games: each character picks one of five initiative phases they'd like to go in. It would seem like going first is the best place to be, but with death mechanics kicking in at the end of phase five, maybe you want your healer there to rescue folks? It looks like it can get VERY tactical very quickly, while still being super quick to transition from narrative into combat. Great video btw! Cool to see someone else dabbling with Daggerheart too - I'm in the middle of a 10-Shot which is possibly the most fun I've ever had GMing!

[@dandmadeeasy]

That system does sound tactically satisfying! Do adversaries go in set phases, or does the GM decide when they go? Are actions simultaneous within a specific phase? I have another game of Daggerheart tomorrow with a different group. I'm excited to see what happens with the shared storytelling this time! And thanks, I'm generally aiming to improve with each video. There are so many pieces, and it's satisfying trying to improve each of them (which is what you're doing with your DMing - go check out Rich's channel everyone!)

[@herissonanonyme1597]

As for any design questions: there is no "best" initiative system. It all depends on your game intentions: what is the fight duration? what amount of actors will you have in general? Is it heroïc, realistic, survivalistic? is your game for tactical enjoyers or focus on narrative? But of course, anyone can have its favorite system :)

[@dandmadeeasy]

Yes, of course everyone has different preferences, and different initiative mechanics work better with different situations or game "moods". Big swings in number of turns for each actor may be more appropriate in games with a high difficulty or "survival" aspect. There are a lot of things that initiative systems can add to a game, and a lot of tradeoffs between some of those. More intrigue/suspense requires less knowledge of turn order, for example. I did my best to get this across in the video! A major drive for me enjoying TTRPGs is the combat. I love other aspects too, but first and foremost I'm a strategic/tactical player, which is why I prefer a game to have rounds and a set turn order (at least after the first round). When I first heard about it, I loved the idea of Daggerheart's initiative system (always choose who goes) because it seemed like it should be smooth and require no admin, but when I actually tried it, I felt that it caused more problems than it solved. I'm aware that my feeling on that may be colored by the fact that I am primarily a strategic/tactical player, though.

[@Access1296]

My favorite initiative system is side based initiative - with a twist. Side based initiative supports teamwork and has a huge advantage of being simple to use. However, traditional side based initiative has two main disadvantages: (1) it’s very swingy. Whoever gets to go first can decimate the other team before they get the chance to act, and (2) it doesn’t support the fantasy of having a fast character who can react to any situation… because everyone acts together. So here’s my modifications: at the start of combat, every player rolls initiative - modified by their dexterity or wits ability, depending on the system. The GM sets a target number for this roll depending on how quickly the monsters react - goblins gambling around a table is an easy check, while an undetected spider jumping down from a ceiling would be very difficult. Each player that succeeds on this initiative check gets to take a turn (in whatever order they like). Then every monster gets to act. Then all players, etc. This system makes fast players feel fast - they always gets to take a turn in the first round of combat! It’s also very simple - every round except the first is just side based initiative. It’s also very fast to adjudicate at the start of combat - the just announces “everyone, roll initiative! The difficulty is….!” Super simple. Super fast. And it solves every problem I’ve ever experienced in a roleplaying game (initiative taking forever, fast players getting to feel fast, batting order, teamwork…). Cheers!

[@dandmadeeasy]

Thanks for sharing! Yeah, my main issue with side-based initiative would be how swingy it can be, but if you can assume that one side or the other will win, you can take that into account with encounter balancing. I guess you don't have issues with players deciding which order to take turns in, then? For example it always being the most outspoken players that go first? Have you considered pre-rolling the initiative rolls rather than rolling them at the start of combat, or do you not mind the extra admin at the start of the combat?

[@csongorszarka3254]

Nice summary about a variety of aspects. I had it quite hard with my system, as some of my players like strategising but others just want a more purely narrative game. So here's how my initiative works: PC's have initiative that they roll at the start, but of course the GM can override that if necessary (e.g. surprise). Actions are introduced as a resource; you have 1d4+x actions per turn, and different things cost different amounts. Here's the thing though: monsters don't have turns. They have a fixed number of maximum actions per round, but they only get these actions on certain conditions; e.g. a monster might get 2 actions if it takes damage. It can choose to not use them. I feel this works great because it adds the option to strategise if you want (figuring out and playing with how enemies get their actions), and also provides enough flexibility for the GM to run great scenes. Not to mention it doesn't break the flow of player actions with monsters' turns. And this issue I rarely see addressed. Maybe this can spark some discussion, I'm very open to criticism.

[@dandmadeeasy]

Thank you - I have been thinking a lot about initiative since playing Daggerheart! I guess it can be tough if you have players that are looking for different things from a game. That's an interesting system! I guess the Infernal is in the details. How many "action points" does each action cost, and which player actions give adversaries how many "action points"? I feel the system could work well (and I expect it must if you use it!), but you'd need to balance those factors well, depending on what you're going for in your games. If a player does nothing to interact with a specific adversary, does it get any "action points" at all? I may actually look at it the other way around, where e.g. taking damage can reduce the number of "action points" you can use on a turn as you get interrupted (but every round, every actor can take at a minimum one action (regardless of how many "action points" it would usually cost)). Let's say every X damage an actor takes in a turn, they lose one "action point". That way, players could choose to focus attacks on a particularly strong adversary (or one that is particularly effective against their party composition), or they could split them across multiple adversaries. This kind of system would offer an obvious benefit for rolling high as you'd have more chance of reducing the opposing side's action point pool, so that's something to consider in terms of balance. It's interesting that you mention breaking the flow of player actions with adversary turns. I'd generally consider this to be a good thing as it helps maintain tension, but that depends on the mood of the system. I like challenge, and for games to offer a lot of danger and tension. If you're wanting to set a mood where players are really powerful, giving players more turns than adversaries, and more control over enemy initiative could be a great way to get that feeling across.

[@csongorszarka3254]

​@@dandmadeeasy 1) For example, attacking with a dagger, jumping, opening a door, etc. is 1 action, running across a room or striking with a sword is 2, using a bow is usually 3-4, etc. There are some actions that require a whole turn, with no action spent on anything else (that usually means around 4-5 actions). How NPC's get actions depends on the specific creature. Usually it's something like: 2 actions if it takes damage; 1 action if someone leaves their range. Some group creatures get actions from their allies getting hurt, and some unique creatures might get actions from more specific things, like receiving an attack that missed, or an enemy dodging or being hit by a specific ability. E.g. Bonegnawers, a type of giant rat, get extra actions if their bites hit, which they can only use to Gnaw (which deals big damage, but only works when its bite has hit someone). This variability means there's a lot of space for unique mechanics and strategy. 2) I've only thought partially about he problem you raise, and it's very valid. I'd say that since my style of GM'ing includes varying difficulties and stats mid-fight somewhat, as well as resetting the scene every once in a while (I find it's really helpful for maintaining narrative and not just playing a boardgame once combat starts) - since these are the case, I'll probably have creatures that didn't get actions do something in this resetting of the scene. For example: "The boat wavers and groans as the pirate ship clashes against it, and (insert PC name) nearly loses their balance. They look up just in time to see the captain's rapier flashing at their shoulder." I know this is not the most elegant solution though, and this is an area to improve on (or a fault, which each system has a few of, I suppose). 3) Reducing actions by dealing damage is actually a really neat separate idea. I'm not sure how it would play out with action economy, but it's worth a shot. 4) I actually think it depends more on how the GM approaches combat in regards to narrative. I'm running it similarly to how it works otherwise: the GM describes how PC's perceive the situation, they can act, consequences happen. Because of that, it makes sense in my style that enemies would 'react' to players in this regard. I actually also worried about the players constantly dictating the rhythm, but a serious encounter (with a group of the previously mentioned Bonegnawers, actually) proved this is not a problem. I perceived it perfectly conveyed the tension of not knowing what to do next because anything you do might give your opponent the opportunity to kill someone. It's very much like turn-based initiative where the players are anxious about the next turn of the enemy, except it's less definite, which I find is more realistic. Although, this encounter did include some non-reaction based actions on the enemies' side. Those few certain enemy actions do have to be there. The reason I don't like NPC's having their own turn is because it's not player-centric, which means it takes up its own time from the story, which is otherwise primarily meant to be told around the players. That is, if you have a system like mine (with multiple actions a round) or you aren't fluent enough in GMing to know what a rule or ability says. I'm trying to say it's a matter of preference. But it's great that this topic actually comes up, because it's really essential to how TTRPG stories are told and definitely not mentioned enough.

[@RadishAcceptable]

I think out of all of them I've played, Shadowrun 5th edition did it the best. Shadowrun is a d6 only game. Players have somewhere between 1 and 5ish dice to roll for initiative usually, depending on their stats, gear, perks, and situational stuff can add and remove dice. Players and baddies all roll at the start of each round by default, however an optional rule is to basically auto reroll the same values each round. I prefer rerolling, but I get why some folks don't. Adding all the dice up, all actors go from highest to lowest. After that, subtract 10 form everybody's initiative. If your initiative isn't zero or less, you repeat the process until everybody is at zero or less. This makes for some fantastic situationally tactical plays, and it gives value to "stupid fast" characters by giving them extra action economy, but only if the combat isn't over before they get a chance to use it.

[@herissonanonyme1597]

It is also over-complicated imo, it could break the tension to have that many calculations to do at the beginning and during a fight, particularly when you discover the system. So Shadowrun 5th style initiative system is probably good for tactical/simulation enjoyers who love to play with stats

[@RadishAcceptable]

@@herissonanonyme1597 it's not so complicated. You just add and then make a longer list for turn orders at the start.

[@dandmadeeasy]

Ah, Orks and hackers. I played quite a bit of Shadowrun in video game form, but only had a single game of the TTRPG quite some time ago. The juxtaposition of fantasy races and magic in a modern/futuristic setting is fun! That's an interesting way to allow actors to take more than one turn. While stats can affect it, it's still pretty random how many turns you get per round. If the balance works with it and you enjoy the system, that's great! It also gives "power gamers" like me one other thing to optimize - how many turns we're likely to get vs. damage etc. As I mention in the video, I generally prefer to have a set turn order and not need to reroll/reset initiative each round for a couple of reasons (tactics, tension), but I do see the opposite side of that too.

[@dandmadeeasy]

This would be my immediate concern too. Great if you understand the system and don't mind rolling a lot, but I prefer to avoid zooming out of the game to deal with initiative rolls/allocations as much as possible.

[@MrPhoenixpro]

Don't forget Savage Worlds that does not have a set initiative order because you deal cards to all characters in a game every round. Characters go in order of highest card to lowest. With special rules for Jokers. I actually use this method in all my games because it makes players have to think on the fly

[@dandmadeeasy]

The Savage Worlds / Deadlands initiative system seems to be very popular, I may have to try it!

[@michaelguth4007]

Answer: the one your table has the most fun with. For my table, the variants of turn order don't seem to be the most fun, so we are currently experimenting. That's why I tried to make a "simultaneous" turn system, where all players would note or mark their actions (in secret) against what targets, and then everything is resolved. Damage and other consequences take place AFTER all roles were made, so it's even possible that targets kill each other. The main problem was that it is fast for the players, but horribly to manage for the DM. The current experimental iteration has the DM make all moves for every monster first, with the players being allowed to interrupt at any point. After the DM is done, all players can use their remaining actions as they see fit. Since consequences are mainly resolved at the end of the turn as well, the players usually have a tactical advantage. The players roll all actions to resolve the combat. A monster hits unless the player successfully defends. So the players always have something to do.

[@dandmadeeasy]

It's great that you're experimenting to find a system that works best for you and your players - that's one of the most beautiful things about TTRPGs for me. Yeah, it sounds like the approach with pre-planning actions could be really tough on the DM - especially if there are lots of actors in the combat. Your current version sounds wild, and I love that it gives more agency to players! How do you find the process of resolving all of the consequences in one go? And if you're playing a system with reaction triggers, how do you handle them? (I love using reaction spells in D&D because it's an extra action per turn!) Do you have defense rolls rather than e.g. AC or similar, then? (I'd assume you're playing D&D since you use the term DM - but you may not be!) If you're running D&D, how do you calculate what a player needs to roll?

[@michaelguth4007]

​@@dandmadeeasy We are in an early stage. Our current campaign still runs D&D5e, though we had a quick brainstorming if we should try to convert characters somewhat reasonable. I play other systems with other groups, but there, I'm not a DM/GM/Storyteller. Yeah, the many NPC actors are the problem for a DM to run simultaneously. There are no reaction triggers in a traditional sense, where a player has to establish in advance under which condition they do what. Players have free agency when they want to react. I as a DM, for example, describe that monsters are approaching a choke point to cut off the player's escape. Every player could just say they want to spent an action to contest the monsters by doing (insert player action: running to the choke point to reach it before the monsters). Attributes, abilities, etc are represented by ascending dice, as they get better, from D4 to D12. 3 to 5 dice are rolled to resolve an action against a DC. Every match or higher than the DC is a triumph, and usually one triumph already means success, but more challenging tasks could not only increase the DC, but also the triumphs needed. So there are absolutely no calculations to add dice and modifiers at the table. Each PC has a dicepool for the combat round, consisting of initially 5 dice. Taking successful defensive (re)actions reduces the dice pool by the 2 lowest dices. Other (re)actions remove 1 or more of the lowest dice. Wearing armour grants armour dice that are rolled on every defensive action and are never removed (aside from monster abilities), but armour increases the number of dice that are removed by taking non-defensive action. The dicepool is refreshed at the end of a combat round. Every time a player is attacked, they can roll for an active defence to beat the attacking ability's DC, using all remaining dice in the pool. Armour dice are additionally rolled. More triumphs than required can be used to trigger abilities like counterattack if the player has something like that. E.g. consequences for damage and healing are noted, but a creature doesn't go down until the end of a combat round. One can think of it as not succumbing to a deadly wound the split second you're hit, or the fact that everything supposedly happens simultaneously in the timeframe of a couple of seconds, not in video-game-turn-order-logic.

[@dandmadeeasy]

​@michaelguth4007 it sounds like that system is nicely balanced. If you choose program a specific action but end up surrounded by foes, can you choose to give up that action to focus on defense instead?

[@TheManFromNan]

Obviously the greatest initiative is the one in Hackmaster 5e, the greatest TTRPG ever made

[@dandmadeeasy]

Hah, I wonder if you're biased at all? ;) I wasn't familiar with the system, but I did a bit of research on it. The initiative system in Hackmaster 5E looks a little like the older versions of D&D in a way (speed factors), but it seems like the system aims to simulate simultaneous combat. Different actions take different amounts of time, and actors take actions in time increments rather than rounds. Swing a sword? That may cost you a few seconds, while talking briefly doesn't cost you any. If another actor mostly takes actions that don't take much time, they may get more turns than you if you take actions that take longer. That's super crunchy and I really love the idea, though it may not be for everyone. I also wonder how much admin is involved in tracking time units, and how much that slows down the combat. Have you ever found this to be an issue in your games in the system?

[@TheManFromNan]

@@dandmadeeasy I like the crunchiness of the seconds system but the game advertises itself as the greatest game ever made

[@RyeAlboa]

Hot topic appreciation post! 👍

[@dandmadeeasy]

You definitely rolled a 20 on initiative for this one, I didn't even have time to add my pinned comment! Hope you enjoy the video!

[@RyeAlboa]

That’s my secret DanD… I’m always ‘holding’ my action 😂

[@dandmadeeasy]

@@RyeAlboa Strong strats! I once got the finishing blow on a lich with a held action. It kept going invisible and I knew it was on low health, so I readied an action to cast a level 2 Magic Missile at it the moment it became visible. When it appeared to try paralyzing an ally, the missiles triggered. I rolled 4 4's on 4 dice and dealt 20 damage. Bye bye, lich! What's your best held action?

[@eldritch3465]

Whats your opinion on vtm v5 combat where the type of action determinds its order?

[@dandmadeeasy]

Caveat - I haven't played the system, but I just did some reading to figure out how it works. I'm not sure how successful I was with this. I assume you mean the basic combat? It seems advanced combat has a range of rules that you can choose to use if you want - I think this is a great way to build/share game mechanics. So there are "turns", where every actor declares their intent at the start of the turn, and based on what each actor chooses to do, the storyteller facilitates resolving outcomes... somewhat simultaneously from what I can tell? i.e. already-engaged melee rolls go before ranged rolls, but all rolls of the same type happen at the same time? One huge benefit of this is that I expect it's very quick to resolve. As there's very little thought space in what to do in the turn (melee attack opponent X or ranged attack opponent Y, run for cover, split attacks) I expect it's very quick for players to determine their intent, too. For me, I'd consider it a downside that there seems to be so little space for making tactical decisions, and that in many combats, on many turns, I expect you'd end up just doing the same thing (OK, I'll melee attack the closest opponent then, because that's what my character is good at... maybe I'll choose to split my attacks this turn). In systems where martial characters have limited options and it's possible to have more options (e.g. play a spellcaster), I almost always go for having more options because I prefer that, but many people are happy with a limited set of options. Overall, the system seems: * Quite simple - both in terms of mechanical/resolution simplicity, which is a good thing, and options available, which is a bad thing for me, but may be good for others * Fair - in that everyone has the option of taking the same number of "turns" in a combat - some people may prefer to have more variance where some characters can go faster than others, and I get that, but I prefer to prioritize every player seeing the same amount of action across combats, and they always can in this system * Quick - to set up and resolve - always a good thing You get a little tension and intrigue from not knowing what opponents are doing, and because everything should run pretty quickly. So, overall, there are quite a lot of good elements there, but for me, I'd prefer if there were more options available for what to do on "your" turn. That isn't a criticism of the initiative system itself, though, but the combat in a wider sense, and the simplicity of options in combat actually supports the quick setting of intentions and resolution of outcomes, so it has a benefit too. My understanding is that VTM is much more focused on social encounters rather than combat, so having simple combat may be a good thing for many players, but maybe it isn't really my type of game because I love engaging combats. As a side note, it's really nice that the rules for conflicts are similar regardless of whether they're combat or social conflicts. This makes things easier for both players and the storyteller. Do you play with the system? What do you think about the combat system and why?

[@eldritch3465]

@dandmadeeasy thank you so much for taking the time to reply and research vtm! I'm unfortunately yet to play a proper campaign, but I thought it was an interesting contrast to the initiative systems in the video, being more concise. Older verisons did have a version of a power, celerity that gave extra actions in a turn, but it was quite overpowered and kind of trivialised a lot of combat.

[@AVADAMS1967]

New to your Streams. You do a great job. Observation that you might want to take as a suggestion. Your title "What is the BEST initiative system in TTRPGs?" strikes me as being a bit 'click-baity' in that you never put forward what you think is the best, your Thesis question of the title. Of course, I lost interest when I got past the 'Tension' segment and didn't finish it because I felt it wouldn't answer the suggestion you offered, 'what do you the content creator think is best?' I'd rename this video, "A discussion of TTRPG initiated systems and the pros and cons of each." I've stepped down off my soap box. Thank you.

[@dandmadeeasy]

Thank you for the praise, I am trying my best to improve with every video and it's great to have feedback. I have a research background, so I understand your comment and your preference for academic purity. Sadly, though, I don't believe the video would have much success with a title similar to the one you suggest. Unfortunately, if I want to be successful here on KZbin, I need to "play the game". By the way, if you had got a minute or so further into the video, you would have seen me present a system I'd like to play with, which best (for me) fits my preferences based on the factors I explained and discussed. Of course this isn't the universal "best" system, and no such system exists, but let's call it the best for me based on my preferences.

[@luanapriscila4485]

Amazing 🎲

[@Guurzak]

You should take a look at the card-based initiative system from Savage Worlds- it as a surprising amount of both tactical depth and player engagement to the gameplay and especially when a joker turns up. And please find something else to do with your hands, your content was great but the presentation was very distracting!

[@dandmadeeasy]

Thanks for the suggestion! Someone else mentioned it, or at least they mentioned Deadlands and I believe it's in the same series? It looks really interesting if the theme (playing cards) fits the game being played, I just wonder about any system where actors can take a different number of actions per round. While I don't like rolling for initiative in a game, I expect cards would be much faster. Thanks a lot for the honest feedback by the way, it really helps!

[@LeFlamel]

Your system seems really reliant on GM bookkeeping and management, which you seemed to not want. GM rolls initiative for player order, decides whether enemies go first or second, and decides enemy order. The cleanest way to track this is two lists, so that the entries on the list don't have to be shuffled around just because one enemy died. Overall I think it still fails at player attention, tension, and intrigue. Eventually an order develops, which alllows players to check out outside of their turn. Tension is lost by requiring the GM to record random player initiative at the start. Intrigue only exists in the first round. Not intending to be harsh; feedback is needed for growth.

[@dandmadeeasy]

Thanls. I always accept constructive feedback, as you say, it's necessary for growth! (and having an open attitude is crucially important as a DM and person). I don't have such an issue with admin if it's mostly handled outside the game so it doesnt slow it down, and of the 3 things you mention, rolling is the only one that I'd consider to be heavy on admin - the others are actually liberating as a DM. In my pinned comment, I suggested a few approaches for player turn order that don't require rolling instead. It would even be possible to use free initiative for the players for the first round, but then keep their order fixed. The only thing that concerns me with this is fairness and how players may feel if they always go last etc. through no decision of their own. As I mentioned on the video, as an individual I really appreciate tactics, so my focus is on having a defined (and mostly unchanging) turn order, and the other things I mention are nice to have rather than the main focus for me. As I play most games around a table, one list would be fine - I was thinking of using double-sided cards in easy view of everyone e.g. on a DM screen. If an actor gets knocked out, I'd just need to rearrange them, or get a player to help with that. If that seems like too much effort, we could just keep the now non-alternating turn order instead - less admin. For people checking out of the game, as I said I'm not sure how a system where you know your turn is a while away compares with one where you have no idea when it will be. It would be an interesting experiment to explore this. For tension and intrigue, it's better than rolling at the start of combat and everyone knowing everything in advance, but a defined turn order does develop as that's my main focus for the tactics that supports. Tension is held throughout by a mostly alternating turn order, and there's intrigue in the first round of combat as the turn order is revealed. I haven't actually used this system, so I'll see how it goes in some future games, and adapt if necessary. What would your perfect system be?

[@LeFlamel]

@@dandmadeeasy having to rearrange the list is the exact thing I wanted to avoid, hence the two list suggestion. Let me elaborate some more. Take an index card and two paper clips. Have the PCs listed down the left edge while enemies are listed across the top edge, and a paperclip on the top left name for each. When the first PC goes, move the paperclip to the second name, then resolve the first NPC. If any character is KO'd, you scratch out their name and skip them when moving the paperclip.

[@LeFlamel]

​@@dandmadeeasy as far as tension goes, I was mostly referring to loss of tension at the start of the fight when rolling for players. Choosing when enemies go in the first round cuts down that setup time while keeping tension wrt the first round, but from the sound of it that enemy order becomes static for future rounds rather than always being up to the GM. If enemy order was always up to the GM, that would be an improvement in my eyes.

[@LeFlamel]

​@@dandmadeeasyDiscussing my perfect combat system is meaningless if you hold certain ideas of what "tactics" means or requires. For example, why do you believe that tactics requires a defined turn order round after round? 5e and PF2e are regarded as tactics games, but they allow players to delay their turns, functionally allowing them to set up whatever turn order they want. Would it be less tactical if they could simply do that by default? Shouldn't tactics be wholly within the realm of "what options do you have and how do you set up plays," and the initiative system is largely incidental to that?

[@dandmadeeasy]

@@LeFlamel I see what you mean now. That would be a nice way to do it. The way I was envisaging it is that I would have double-sided cards for each actor. Each card would have an image of the actor on it (or more aesthetically pleasing version, it would be a laminated cutout of that actor). I'd put the "cards" in order on top of a DM screen and maybe use a plastic clip or something to show where we are in the initiative order. I could forego the idea of enforcing alternating initiative at the beginning of a round to make less admin required.

[@M0rchaint]

Sorry, but all your explanations miss the point. Initiative is because the GM is human and needs to process the round one action at a time. There is no "best" initiative system. Individual initiative is better in complex battles so the GM can sort it all out. Group methods are better for speed in simple battles. As you get better you can adjust from combat to combat.

[@dandmadeeasy]

While one effect of an initiative system is that it allows the GM (and players) to simulate combat, the actual mechanics used can add a lot to a game (or take away from it), and I hope that some of the things I discussed are helpful to people if they're thinking about modifying initiative in their games. You're absolutely right that different mechanics are better for different situations, and there is no universally "best" system, of course. Have you switched initiative systems between combats? How did you find it? I'd just worry that if you do this too much your players may get confused and not know what to expect. (Probably much more of a concern for newer players)