Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gubble 04-11-06, 01:57 PM	Wasn't there a different system for rolling init every round published in one of the Wizard's books? If so, could someone point me to which one? Cheers!
Waterhammer 04-11-06, 10:38 PM	The rules are in the DMG; I was just looking at them the other day. Sadly, I forget which page. Fortune smiles on us though, there is an index.
Mitchell 04-11-06, 10:51 PM	It seems simple enough without even looking. Instead of fixing initiative at the time it is first rolled, simply have everyone reroll initiative at the beginning of each new combat round. All in all, it will come out basically the same. The more dextrous or otherwise initiative advantaged characters/monsters will tend to go first, while the rest will fall into order behind them. On the up side, it means that a bad roll won't keep a character out of their "proper" slot for an entire combat. On the downside, a character who "should" go early is just as likely to make a bad roll for the 2nd or 3rd round as they are for the 1st, every round you have to stop everything while everyone rolls again, and everyone is more likely to lose their place.
Dalthbar 04-11-06, 11:05 PM	Sounds like a perfect recipe for killing gameplay. Take 5-6 PCs, 5-10 monsters and then make those rolls every round. In addition to that, the DM has to re-write and reorder them each time. Plus, you have situations where someone could roll super low the last round and then super high the next and effectively get two full actions in a row before their target can. If that was a spell caster, that'd be some serious possibilities. The current system works and is balanced.
Gubble 04-12-06, 12:14 AM	Thanks, I'll poke back through the DMG again. I thought there was some reference in there to init-related actions. As for Dalthbar, that wasn't what I asked for was it? Cheers.
mvincent 04-12-06, 11:37 AM	Sounds like a perfect recipe for killing gameplay. Take 5-6 PCs, 5-10 monsters and then make those rolls every round. In addition to that, the DM has to re-write and reorder them each time.I would agree, but I also acknowledge that there are some players that actually like this sort thing for reasons I cannot understand (along with other bits of crunchiness that could be more easily handled... like the default initiative system... and much of D&D in general). As for Dalthbar, that wasn't what I asked for was it?When posting on these boards, one can expect to get all sorts of input that may not have been asked for (which can be both good and bad). In this case, his input isn't entirely invalid: When implementing a change like this one should at least be aware that it could make many player types very unhappy.
Shr3dZ 04-12-06, 11:39 AM	Im pretty sure the way to roll initiative and the alternative way (rolling each round) is just in the PHB. Combat - Initiative section.
dvlsadvct 04-12-06, 12:44 PM	My groups campaign/s has been rolling init every round for years now. We havent run into any significant problems. I think it enhances gameplay. It makes combat much more fast paced and spontaneous. It can be somewhat a pain to keep track of all the time but it hasnt broken any of our adventures.
JadeSpider9643 04-12-06, 09:44 PM	As for Dalthbar, that wasn't what I asked for was it? Cheers. He didn't give you what you asked for, he gave you what you needed. Rolling init each round leads to many problems both in-game and out, and provides no real benefits.
Tony111 04-12-06, 09:49 PM	Im pretty sure the way to roll initiative and the alternative way (rolling each round) is just in the PHB. Combat - Initiative section. They are in the DMG, not the PH. Believe it. And I second Dalthbar, it is a bad optional rule. Not only is it more complicated but it leads to situations where someone could be stunned for one round and not suffer any consequences (see the DMG example) and things along those lines. Don't do it. -Tony
The_Levitator 04-12-06, 10:21 PM	Rolling initiative every round is simple and fast with DM Genie, so we tried it out for a while. While I don't think it's a huge detriment to the game, I can see the point of certain things like being stunned or clobbered not really doing what they are intended to do. We ditched it after a few sessions. Not because it slowed the game down, but because it just seemed unecessary. The standard system lets the fast guys generally be fast. And it makes sense that if a normally fast guy rolls poorly, he is slow to react and is a step behind during combat. As many combats are 10 rounds or less, it doesn't seem necessary to us to roll for initiative every 6 seconds. We do roll initiative once every 10 rounds, as we feel this sort of simulates a normally fast guy who originally reacted poorly to get a grip on the situation and get back "in the zone".
Waterhammer 04-12-06, 11:24 PM	Rolling initiative every round is simple and fast with DM Genie, so we tried it out for a while. While I don't think it's a huge detriment to the game, I can see the point of certain things like being stunned or clobbered not really doing what they are intended to do. We ditched it after a few sessions. Not because it slowed the game down, but because it just seemed unecessary. The standard system lets the fast guys generally be fast. And it makes sense that if a normally fast guy rolls poorly, he is slow to react and is a step behind during combat. As many combats are 10 rounds or less, it doesn't seem necessary to us to roll for initiative every 6 seconds. We do roll initiative once every 10 rounds, as we feel this sort of simulates a normally fast guy who originally reacted poorly to get a grip on the situation and get back "in the zone". Actually this is touched on in the DMG sidebar, about why initiative is how it is. Personally I like the idea of re-rolling initiative if the situation changes. Per the DMG, or as you suggest Levitator, every 10 rounds.
Nom 04-17-06, 09:25 AM	We do roll initiative once every 10 rounds, as we feel this sort of simulates a normally fast guy who originally reacted poorly to get a grip on the situation and get back "in the zone".Your house rule might not be a bad idea, but the rationalisation is loopy. Remember that 3.5 initiative is almost completely cyclic. The slow guy gets "in the zone" when he has his first turn. Thereafter, everyone acts exactly once between each of your turns; once things get moving your actual initiative number is effectively irrelevant. Thus, I'm not really sure how re-randomising the cycle every 10th turn really achieves much?
The_Levitator 04-17-06, 12:05 PM	I think the only thing it really achieves is to change the rhythm of combat in longer encounters which does affect strategy. There's just something about a guy who has improved initiative and a way higher DEX going last for the entire combat because of 1 bad roll that doesn't feel right. Likewise, the slow guy who gets lucky and rolls a 20 being "faster" for the entire combat doesn't really make sense either. We used to roll initiative every round (using DM Genie and a dicless gaming style, it doesn't really slow things down. It's only 1 more click) but it got a little confusing for the players in large group combat. There is definitely a change in strategy when players are suddenly going in a different order. It's a nice change up when you finally get the jump on the guy in front of you who's been dictating the combat. Strategy changes from being reactive to proactive. It doesn't necessarily put the game on it's ear or anything, but the players like the way it changes the feel of the fight. And making my players happy is a good acheivement for me. :D
kalstrand 04-17-06, 04:48 PM	There's just something about a guy who has improved initiative and a way higher DEX going last for the entire combat because of 1 bad roll that doesn't feel right. Likewise, the slow guy who gets lucky and rolls a 20 being "faster" for the entire combat doesn't really make sense either. Its not that the fast guy is continually going last because as was said above other than your first action combat is cyclical. So essentially he was just slow to act initially. It doesn't matter if he is going on a 200 or a 10 after the first round because he gets his action every round just like every other creature in the combat.
The_Levitator 04-17-06, 07:17 PM	Its not that the fast guy is continually going last because as was said above other than your first action combat is cyclical. So essentially he was just slow to act initially. It doesn't matter if he is going on a 200 or a 10 after the first round because he gets his action every round just like every other creature in the combat. I think I get where you are coming from. But wouldn't it change the action and your decisions you make a little based on when you act? If I am fighting another person 1 on 1 in a group battle, and I have IC4 and he has IC3, he gets to act on me first. So all of my actions would be based on his actions. If I were to go to IC 2 and him on 3, I would get to choose my action first, dictating the pace and direction of the combat, right? I know it's not a huge deal, and there seems to be more negatives than positives to initiative every round. I get the cyclical thing I think, but I still think it makes a difference who gets to initially start the action. If my opponent has the higher initiative, he gets the first choice of action every round, which means my actions would be in response to his. If the tables were to turn at some point in the combat, like rerolling initiative, then I would get a chance to act first against him and he would have to act in response to me. If I'm interpreting this all wrong, I apologize. If I'm way off base, could someone please show me where my perception is wrong? I don't mean that sarcastically either. I'm seriously confused! :confused: I might just be intertreting the combat rules wrong, and I want to make sure I'm seeing this the right way. The DMG suggests rerolling initiative for special circumstances, because it breaks up the action and changes conditions. I guess I was just thinking that changing up the initiative every 10 rounds mixes things up a bit without slowing the game down so much. Since a lot of combats end before that anyway, it's not often an issue.
Neuneck 04-17-06, 07:32 PM	I prefer rerolling initative every round... if you think about a spellcaster with the imroved initative feat and 15 dex who has rolled a 19 for init (for the whole encounter) then he'll be able to cast as many spells as he wants (on init. 25) way before someone could strike him to interrupt his casting... or think about the rogue rolling poorly, getting grappled and held down.. he'll not be able to free himself as he won't have the opportunity to really ACT the way HE wants it... I think it's up to the GM and the group... if the DM's able to look after all his monster's initative, fine... if not, fine, too... then go with the 1 init/encounter way... (just wanted to add: if there are too many identical enemies, the DM can give them a group initative -.-)
supernerd8916 04-17-06, 07:42 PM	then he'll be able to cast as many spells as he wants (on init. 25) way before someone could strike him to interrupt his casting... what are you talking about? he could get off, at most, 2 spells then again, that might be all he wants... Evards Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion!!! (OoTS #20)
Nom 04-17-06, 08:47 PM	To get 3.5 initiative, you need to understand the model. It's actually a fairly common simulation model - lots of stuff is happening over a "long" period of time, but rather than use a time-based model we'll just let each player compress all their activity into a single "turn", and alternate turns. An equivalent example is a WW2 game, with one day per turn. On their turn, the Allies first move then fight, and then the Germans move then fight. No-one would suggest that this is actually modelling the allies moving about from 6am to 12am, then fighting for an hour or so until 1pm, at which point the Germans move about until 7pm and then fighting until 8pm. However, the alternating nature of this is important. There's usually a limit to how much you can achieve in a single turn. Allowing double-moves - one side moves twice in a row - can seriously imbalance the game model. Some games do allow initiative to be re-rolled every turn, but they usually have a more complex interaction model to account for this. D&D uses the same turn-based system. You roll to see who goes first, and then each actor in turn takes 6 seconds worth of activity packed into a single turn. Then everyone else acts once, and then you act again. There are more actors, but otherwise it works the same. D&D does throw a slight curve in that it allows a character to suspend part of his turn pending a triggering event (Ready) or even defer the whole turn until a more convenient time (Delay). D&D also has a lot of effects which last for 1 turn - which is normally defined as until the start of the character's next turn. All these effects assume an "everyone has one turn" cyclic model. Randomising the ordering introduces double-move effects and makes a mess of these timings. Randomising ordering also slows play. Aside from the time taken to do the randomisation, it introduces chaos into the taking of turns, forcing people to defer planning until much later. Summary: after the initial order is set, the only effect of initiative value is to remind you what the order is. A guy with init 25 gets his first action before a guy with init 10, but thereafter they take turns. After that first turn, there is no true "earlier" or "later". f you think about a spellcaster with the imroved initative feat and 15 dex who has rolled a 19 for init (for the whole encounter) then he'll be able to cast as many spells as he wants (on init. 25) way before someone could strike him to interrupt his casting...You're thinking 2nd edition. 1 standard action spells occur entirely within the caster's turn, regardless of init count. The only way to interrupt such a spell with an attack is via an AoO or readied attack. There is no concept of "being damaged earlier in the round", except with continuous damage (eg melf's acid arrow).
The_Levitator 04-17-06, 09:45 PM	That's the part that rubs me wrong about the initiative in D&D I think. In your example of a WWII game, one turn can be an entire day. In D&D, a single combat round is only 6 seconds. To me, that's not a long time time for a turn. I've read a lot of posts that have said that D&D doesn't have the best simulation of real combat, so I'm not looking to burden it down with unecessary extras. On the subject of more realistic combat games, could someone compare how initiative is used in those types of games? I will admit right now that I don't play any other games except for D&D. The only other RPG's I have ever played are Shadowrun and Dragonquest. If I had the time, you can bet that list would be much longer for sure! :D I am curious how other games systems compare with D&D in regards to initiative.
Nom 04-17-06, 10:26 PM	6 seconds can be a long time or a short time, depending on what you're trying to do. At work I deal with latencies of audio samples of which 48,000 are generated every second; 6 seconds is so long as to be useless to us. In contrast, when I'm measuring the growth of my daughter any day in a given month is much the same. However, asking how other games do it isn't really the point. What you need to ask is whether you are using a "turn based" or "round based" system. A turn based system uses iterative turns to partition activity, and its mechanics are designed around this assumption. A round based system typically uses phases to partition activity, and its mechanics are designed around this assumption. Seamlessly switching from one to the other is extremely difficult if the partitioning of activity supports any significant complexity. D&D 3rd ed uses turns. Rolemaster, Runequest and Shadowrun (some editions) and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay use rounds and phases. D&D basic (red box) used a round-based system where each actor had a single very simple turn. Note that none of these systems claim to be a particularly exceptional simulation at the level of individual actions.
The_Levitator 04-17-06, 10:53 PM	That might be where my confusion is. In terms of terminology, D&D calls each segment a round, when in actuality it is a turn based system and not actually a round based system like Shadowrun (the only one you mentioned that I've actually played). You seem to have a very firm grasp of these different combat systems. Which RPG out there has the most realistic system? I know that most realistic doesn't necessarily mean better overall, and I really like the D&D system. But I've also seen a TON of suggestions to tweak it and try to make it more realistic, with initiative being just one of many game mechanics mentioned. That seems to indicate that there is room for improvement in the eyes of many DM's. I'm sure that's true of all RPG's, but I would really be interested in your take on it. :)
Nom 04-17-06, 11:17 PM	No, a D&D round has a precise meaning - it's the period of time required for everyone to act once. This is equivalent to going from any given initiative number to the same initiative number. You will notice that this means that a D&D round is subjectively defined, rather than a distinct entity. Segment is not a D&D term. This usage of "round" is different to a round-based system, where a round is a distinct period of time that may encompass various actions from the participants. As for real-life melee combat simulation, none of the above systems are particularly good. Most are biased towards heroic fantasy, which has different priorities to "real life". HeroQuest (another system I play) is biased towards narrative. I don't actually know of a system that has "accurate simulation of medieval swordplay" as a design goal.
The_Levitator 04-18-06, 12:03 AM	Thanks for the quick reply! :tiphat: I have a better understanding of the mechanics now in regard to its design. I'm still not getting why who goes when is thought of as irrelevant after the first round by some people. I mean, if you roll lower initiative than your opponent, you are always reacting to their action every round, not just the first. I know I'm probably not explaining myself well. It just seems to me that when you take your action in a round can be very important. At least now I have a little more insight as to the intent of the design. Since we are on the subject of initiative, I have another related question. I swear I read somewhere of an initiative variant where actions are declared from lowest to highest, and then the actions are carried out from highest to lowest. I think this was to benefit the faster combatants to allow them a chance to react and intervene with the slower combatants action. Does anyone have a source for that? Forgive me if it's in the Core. I'm still fairly new to 3.5. I don't know, maybe I just dreamt it!
Nom 04-18-06, 12:40 AM	I'm still not getting why who goes when is thought of as irrelevant after the first round by some people. I mean, if you roll lower initiative than your opponent, you are always reacting to their action every round, not just the first.True. But then they are reacting to yours too. The trick is to remember that there is no "end of round" phase. It just goes ABABAB or BABABA. It's good to be the first to act, but after that there's no "acting first" or "acting second", just "acting now" or "acting next". Since we are on the subject of initiative, I have another related question. I swear I read somewhere of an initiative variant where actions are declared from lowest to highest, and then the actions are carried out from highest to lowest. I think this was to benefit the faster combatants to allow them a chance to react and intervene with the slower combatants action. Does anyone have a source for that?Some games use that sort of system; I'm not aware of it ever being official in any D&D edition, and certainly not 3rd. Ultimately, it makes losing the initiative on any given round a severe penalty; your opponent has total control of the tactical situation. A cleaner variant is to allow the winner to either act first or last. Pre-declaration systems also slow play, since they require each actor to try to second guess all other actors in addition to actual resolution time, and also require conflict resolution mechanics. I'm not saying that "guessing" based systems are bad, but the guessing should be included as a prime mechanic and theme. Incidental guessing rarely adds anything except frustration. A cyclic combat system removes all such considerations. AoOs and readied actions provide the necessary flexibility to handle activity that needs to be treated as simultaneous.
The_Levitator 04-18-06, 01:05 AM	Everything you posted makes perfect sense. After going back through the PHB again, I think I may have found what's been bothering me with our combats lately. As a player I find some great strategic value in Delay and Ready actions. The problem with the group I'm DM'ing for is that they don't use either......ever. I try and stress to them the importance of movement, using feats and special actions. But in the heat of combat, they basically try and turn it into a toe-to-toe slugfest. I, as a DM play my party's opponents to their fullest capabilities, hoping it would rub off on them. What bothers me about that is that a couple of my players have been playing for more than 10 years. I think I was just looking for a way to mix things up and try to get them to use their characters to their fullest potential. I was hoping that an alternative way to do initiative would be the answer. This thread has convinced me that initiative is not the problem. I think what I need to do is some gladitorial exercises with my group and go through a "training" of sorts. Thanks again Nom for the great perspective and patience in explaining it! :D
StevenO 04-18-06, 01:11 AM	Initiative only matter on the first round of combat because of the turn cycle. After the initial order is established rounds can simply be defined as the time between your turns. Once a battle is going it no long matters if you rolled high or low because everyone gets a turn between your. A thing to remember about initiative is that it is NOT fixed the entire combat. If you want to, you can refocus to set your init roll at 20; although it cost a turn you go first the next turn. More commonly used are readied and delayed actions which also move you up or down the initiative order.
The_Levitator 04-18-06, 01:23 AM	A thing to remember about initiative is that it is NOT fixed the entire combat. If you want to, you can refocus to set your init roll at 20; although it cost a turn you go first the next turn. I am not familiar with the ability of refocusing to set initiative roll at 20. Is this in any of the Core books? I can't believe I missed something like this. This refocusing that you mentioned, when added to Delay and Ready seem to give the players all the options they need strategically. Thanks a ton! :D
zenlike 04-18-06, 01:52 AM	While I love D&D I believe Shadowrun has the most "realistic" initiative/combat method. I like the idea of having your # of actions per round not being static.
StevenO 04-18-06, 01:56 AM	I can't recall exactly where Refocus is but I believe it is someplace in the PHB. Basically, it is the equivalent of using a delay until the start of the next round. The truth is that unless new combatants enter the fight it doesn't make any difference after combat has started.
Nom 04-18-06, 04:10 AM	Refocus is a 3.0 term. 3.0 still had some conception of 'end of the round'. When 3.5 removed most remaining vestiges of the absolute round it also removed refocus. In 3.5, you just delay. If your delay happens to take you past the point where the initiative count starts again from the top, then you acquire a high rather than a low number. Unless third parties enter the combat the actual number doesn't matter; it just determines where you go in the cycle. I was hoping that an alternative way to do initiative would be the answer. This thread has convinced me that initiative is not the problem. I think what I need to do is some gladitorial exercises with my group and go through a "training" of sorts.Yep. The D&D tactical system is fairly basic, but it definitiely rewards clever thinking and tactical teamwork. Some simple training scenarios can be helpful. If you're going to do this, I'd advise doing it with low-level characters. If necessary, build them specially. Focus on 1 or 2 manoeuvres per scenario. With high level characters and every special move under the sun, things will be too complex for your players to actually learn good tricks. I did this for my first game session with my (new to 3.5) players, and it worked rather well.
Obi-Wan Shinobi 04-18-06, 09:40 AM	Originally Posted by The_Levitator Since we are on the subject of initiative, I have another related question. I swear I read somewhere of an initiative variant where actions are declared from lowest to highest, and then the actions are carried out from highest to lowest. I think this was to benefit the faster combatants to allow them a chance to react and intervene with the slower combatants action. Does anyone have a source for that? one game that uses this type of initiative is Battletech Miniatures ( talking old school FASA not the new plastic minis game). in that system, everyone rolled initiative and lowest initaitve would MOVE first, then on to the last person that rolled the highest, allowing the highest initative person to gain battlefiled control- he know where his opponents moved to first so he can position his forces in a more favorable spot. after all movement is done, then firing begins. the person that rolled the highest initiative goes first this time, allowing them to target their opponents whom they also have better position on. then it goes down the line to lowest initiative. after the turn is over, everyone rolls initiative again for the next turn. not sure how well this type of system would work in D&D terms, what with the AoO and all............
Tolby 04-18-06, 01:59 PM	The old BattleTech system only worked because damage was simulatanous(sp?). Which is not the case in D&D. The only real position bonuses in D&D are flanking and sneak attack. In B-Tech, cover, range, which side you were firing on, how much you moved, how much the enemy moved, type of weapon, all came into play. In addition your base to roll to hit did not change much based on the gunnery skill of your pilot. It changed mostly based on position.
aotrscommander 04-18-06, 06:53 PM	one game that uses this type of initiative is Battletech Miniatures ( talking old school FASA not the new plastic minis game). in that system, everyone rolled initiative and lowest initaitve would MOVE first, then on to the last person that rolled the highest, allowing the highest initative person to gain battlefiled control- he know where his opponents moved to first so he can position his forces in a more favorable spot. A lot of starship or dogfight style games use this type of initiative, where you are dealing with bodies moving with comparitvely fixed rates of turn. Many of the better ground combat systems like Stargrunt II use a sequence where each player alturnates in activating a unit, which then performs action analogous to a D&D turn. The difference in Stagrunt (and the clever bit) is that the side with th fewest units - and thus has the greater command and control responce - basically decides whether to go first or not. (Note: I am not saying that Battletech is sub-par set of rules, since I'm a big Battletech fan, but our group just finds the move sequence a little clunky in comparison!) These systems are perfect for their assigned tasks, but really too abstracted for an RPG game, which is also fought over much smaller ranges (generally!) and at much slower speeds. Most wargames fight on turns that are about 15 minutes, combining a lot of rush and rest. (Battletech being notable exception, handling closer to a dogfight game in truth.) Which RPG out there has the most realistic system? For my experience, Rolemaster has a lot going for it for realism (which makes for a strange counterpoint to the fact more statisical oddities hapen in Rolemaster than in any other game I play). I use many of their sourcebooks as general purpose material, as they generally do a great deal of research, and while no-one is perfect, Rolemaster are usually not far off. Rolemaster, notably has has several varient initiative and activity systems; the one I currently use is a sort of hybird of the best ideas. In one of the Companions (I think it was VI), they introduced CEATS or the combat environments and activity tracking system, which boiled down to a second-by-second modelling, which basically let you model EVERY sword swing. As you can well imagine, we have never actually tried to use this, as it was hideously complex even for Rolemaster and required a level of book-keeping that even I refused to attempt. All that said, I find - as you seem to have - that D&D allows a little more tactical-type flexibility. We recently played a Warhammer RPG (the old version), and I found as DM I was bored by the end of the combat. Most of my two groups (okay all of them bar one and two halves) are wargamers who roleplay, as opposed to roleplayers who occasionally do wargames (and believe it or not, there is a difference). You need to encourage your players to think more tactically; as Nom suggested try a few scenarios. But even wargamers need a prod sometimes; I had to warn on of my D&D groups that if they didn't start to work as a team and think tacitally, the next time they ran into a bunch of enemies well-versed in tactics, they might not all be half the parties level. And they did sit down and think it out, and I noted a marked improvment in party co-ordination. Should have kept my mouth shut, really... Seriosuly though, if your players eally don't listen, try setting a group of enemies on them that utilise a lot of clever tactics and feats, and then if they don't start thinking wipe the floor with them. Don't kill them, obviously, but beat the stuffing out of them. This should have the effect of making them think when in a combat situation; nothing like an NPC usng clever tactics to upset a party, especially if they're lower level. You will often find that players will then ape tactics you used on them (and then you can swich tactics, and they'll copy and at sme point they should learn). You would probably want to use a combined arms team. In the example I mentioned eariler for instance, I used a group of 6 rangers, 6 anti-paladins (basically paladin with the abilities reversed), 12 fighters and a pair of clerics and a pair of wizards. All but he last four were level 4 and the wizards and clerics were 5. The party they were fighting consiste of 7 8-9th level PCs with two familars that were effectively characters in their own right; the PCs are also more powerful than their level indicates because they have access to special hero-type powers. They SHOULD have wiped the floor with the opposition, but attacked piecemeal and while they didn't get too badly damaged, it did underline what would have happened if there had been half the number and twice the level - or a handful or more powerful foes. You might want to try a similar experiment. In addition, the better you can model the detail of your battleground, the more it will encourage tactical thinking (we learned this from our wargames). We use an A2 plastic wallet with gridded cardboard and non-permanent markers, and find that works wonders.
Nom 04-18-06, 11:02 PM	one game that uses this type of initiative is Battletech Miniatures ( talking old school FASA not the new plastic minis game). in that system, everyone rolled initiative and lowest initaitve would MOVE first, then on to the last person that rolled the highest, allowing the highest initative person to gain battlefiled control- he know where his opponents moved to first so he can position his forces in a more favorable spot.Not entirely true. The game was designed to be played with 4-12 units per side, and used alternating movement, with the winner of initiative moving the last unit. At no time did the game require you to declare your actions and then give the opponent a chance to counteract them before you resolved them. Firing phase was resolved simultaneously. In addition, the better you can model the detail of your battleground, the more it will encourage tactical thinking (we learned this from our wargames). We use an A2 plastic wallet with gridded cardboard and non-permanent markers, and find that works wonders.I discovered something similar. Once I starting using pre-printed maps with tables, crumbling walls and other pieces of scenery my more creative players started using them for position and cover. One of my favourite scenes saw my wife's monk balancing on top of 10 ft. of broken wall while a stubborn troll attempted to climb up and attack her. A monk's balance check is significantly better than that of a troll.