Initiative rules to speed play [Archive] - Wizards Community

Initiative rules to speed play [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Joe_Brown
10-29-07, 11:08 PM If a fully prepared player hurried, how quickly could they complete a round in D&D? 30 seconds? Maybe even as little as 10 seconds. Roll to hit, roll damage and maybe a saving throw.

However, how long does actually take an average group of four players and a DM to complete a round in D&D? 300 seconds (5 minutes) or more?

Why is there such a tremendous difference between the possible (30 seconds) and the actual (300 seconds)? One of the reasons is not being prepared. " What's the range on that spell again?" But I have found, that most of that 300 seconds is spent waiting. Waiting for for everyone else to finish their turn so that you can start your own. 270 of the 300 second turn, or 90%, is spent waiting. :(

Why the wait? The delay is caused by the initiative system. The DM and each of the players rolls initiative, and like customers at a bakery, they wait behind those with a "better" number and in front of those with a "worse" number.

If everyone was prepared and they hurried, a D&D round (and time spent) looks like this:
· Roll initiative (10 seconds)
· Determine whose turn it is (10 seconds) 5 times
· That player takes their turn (30 seconds) 5 times
· Determine round is over (10 seconds)
The round shown above would takes 220 seconds. The DM's turn would probably take an extra 30 seconds and their might be a quick rule question for another 50 seconds, for a total round length of 300 seconds.

Now you might say, the group does indeed need the 300 seconds (5 minutes) per round to give everyone a chance to "take their turn." However, only 30 of those 300 seconds (10%), is spent by a player taking their turn, the rest is spent by that player waiting to take their turn.

* * *

Here's an idea. There is a way to give each player twice as much time for their turn (60 seconds) while simultaneously cutting the turn length in half (from 300 to 150) so everyone will be able to play four times as much. Everyone still gets to roll initiative and everyone still goes in the right order, they just do it simultaneously. It is elegant in its simplicity.

:teach:
PROCEDURE (changes to the normal procedure are [bolded].
1. Roll initiative normally
2. Whoever beats the DM's inititative simultaneously takes their normal turn, i.e., the monsters are flat-footed [60 second time limit]
3. The monsters takes their turn normally, i.e., the players that have not yet gone are still flat-footed [The monsters go in any order they choose.] [90 second time limit.]4. ALL players go. [60 second time limit.]
5. Monsters go. [90 second time limit.]

You may notice that the players that lose initiative to the DM seem to lose their first turn. In actuality, their first turn is combined with the "winners" second turn. In game terms they lose nothing at all, they still get the right number of actions and they still go before the monster's second turn.

This process is how we already run through a surprise round or the DM's turn. I am just spreading this simultaneous, intersperced approach to all rounds.

This process has two changes over the old D&D intiative system. First, the players intertwine their turns, after all, why should they wait for each other. The Fighter can ask the Wizard to buff him and, depending on the Mage's answer, can charge with or without the bull's strength. The second difference is that they all must finish their turn in 60 seconds. If you can't decide what to do in 50 seconds and then roll for it 10, then your character sheet needs to be improved to allow that quick of a turn. If some/all of the players discuss an idea or plan their turn for over a minute, they lose initiative, period. That just makes sense. The combat round is supposed to simulate 6 seconds of game time. If the players spend the whole minute arguing about whether or not to drink the unknown potion, then their characters pass for the round (a merciful DM would allow total defense to be used in lieu of a pass).

Other than the time limit, this system plays exactly like a well coordinated team of players delaying for each other but still going before the monsters.

* * *

What do you think?
Krusk
10-30-07, 02:57 AM Thats how I've been running it for a while now.

I keep the numbers, but for example. Players A,B,C,D and DM are in a fight

A gets first init, and so on for letter order, DM gets 3rd.

A begins turn, and I tell B to begin theirs as well, resolving A's actions first. Then B's actions happen.
Then DM goes.
Then as C begins their actions, i tell D, A, and B to begin, resolving effects in order.

I find that so long as you keep the effects happening in order everything runs tons faster.

A's fighter moves and attacks, and by now B has already decided on a fireball, and it lands hitting both the DM and A.
So A delays their action till after B. Now A is after B the rest of the encounter and it may make buffing hard.
fatal error
10-30-07, 11:56 AM Intriguing system.

I'm not sure if it would speed things up for my group, or slow them down more as comander-itis spread among the group with everyone trying to work out their planned actions a group.

A's fighter moves and attacks, and by now B has already decided on a fireball, and it lands hitting both the DM and A.

So is that a feature of your system, that two PCs decided what to do but couldn't notify each other about it? Or is that one of the occasional purposefully friend-hurting fireballs?

Overall, however, it seems like it should work. The only thing that might get tricky is resolution order. If I clump them into one group like the OP, then actions might have to change based on partially resolved rounds. If PC A decides to charge the Orc, but PC B shoots the Orc in the face and kills it, does A still charge? Should A have made the attack rather than B? I'm afraid it could get confusing if everyone is resolving actions at once.
Krusk
10-30-07, 12:43 PM So is that a feature of your system, that two PCs decided what to do but couldn't notify each other about it? Or is that one of the occasional purposefully friend-hurting fireballs?

I was probably unclear. Instead of hitting their friend with a fireball, they delay and go after their friend so they don't hit them. Sorry about that.
Legdiwena
10-30-07, 01:10 PM Seems like that would cause more confusion and take more time than the current system. Everyone gets a turn anyway, sit back and enjoy game when it's not your turn.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Joe_Brown 10-29-07, 11:08 PM	If a fully prepared player hurried, how quickly could they complete a round in D&D? 30 seconds? Maybe even as little as 10 seconds. Roll to hit, roll damage and maybe a saving throw. However, how long does actually take an average group of four players and a DM to complete a round in D&D? 300 seconds (5 minutes) or more? Why is there such a tremendous difference between the possible (30 seconds) and the actual (300 seconds)? One of the reasons is not being prepared. " What's the range on that spell again?" But I have found, that most of that 300 seconds is spent waiting. Waiting for for everyone else to finish their turn so that you can start your own. 270 of the 300 second turn, or 90%, is spent waiting. :( Why the wait? The delay is caused by the initiative system. The DM and each of the players rolls initiative, and like customers at a bakery, they wait behind those with a "better" number and in front of those with a "worse" number. If everyone was prepared and they hurried, a D&D round (and time spent) looks like this: · Roll initiative (10 seconds) · Determine whose turn it is (10 seconds) 5 times · That player takes their turn (30 seconds) 5 times · Determine round is over (10 seconds) The round shown above would takes 220 seconds. The DM's turn would probably take an extra 30 seconds and their might be a quick rule question for another 50 seconds, for a total round length of 300 seconds. Now you might say, the group does indeed need the 300 seconds (5 minutes) per round to give everyone a chance to "take their turn." However, only 30 of those 300 seconds (10%), is spent by a player taking their turn, the rest is spent by that player waiting to take their turn. * * * Here's an idea. There is a way to give each player twice as much time for their turn (60 seconds) while simultaneously cutting the turn length in half (from 300 to 150) so everyone will be able to play four times as much. Everyone still gets to roll initiative and everyone still goes in the right order, they just do it simultaneously. It is elegant in its simplicity. :teach: PROCEDURE (changes to the normal procedure are [bolded]. 1. Roll initiative normally 2. Whoever beats the DM's inititative simultaneously takes their normal turn, i.e., the monsters are flat-footed [60 second time limit] 3. The monsters takes their turn normally, i.e., the players that have not yet gone are still flat-footed [The monsters go in any order they choose.] [90 second time limit.]4. ALL players go. [60 second time limit.] 5. Monsters go. [90 second time limit.] You may notice that the players that lose initiative to the DM seem to lose their first turn. In actuality, their first turn is combined with the "winners" second turn. In game terms they lose nothing at all, they still get the right number of actions and they still go before the monster's second turn. This process is how we already run through a surprise round or the DM's turn. I am just spreading this simultaneous, intersperced approach to all rounds. This process has two changes over the old D&D intiative system. First, the players intertwine their turns, after all, why should they wait for each other. The Fighter can ask the Wizard to buff him and, depending on the Mage's answer, can charge with or without the bull's strength. The second difference is that they all must finish their turn in 60 seconds. If you can't decide what to do in 50 seconds and then roll for it 10, then your character sheet needs to be improved to allow that quick of a turn. If some/all of the players discuss an idea or plan their turn for over a minute, they lose initiative, period. That just makes sense. The combat round is supposed to simulate 6 seconds of game time. If the players spend the whole minute arguing about whether or not to drink the unknown potion, then their characters pass for the round (a merciful DM would allow total defense to be used in lieu of a pass). Other than the time limit, this system plays exactly like a well coordinated team of players delaying for each other but still going before the monsters. * * * What do you think?
Krusk 10-30-07, 02:57 AM	Thats how I've been running it for a while now. I keep the numbers, but for example. Players A,B,C,D and DM are in a fight A gets first init, and so on for letter order, DM gets 3rd. A begins turn, and I tell B to begin theirs as well, resolving A's actions first. Then B's actions happen. Then DM goes. Then as C begins their actions, i tell D, A, and B to begin, resolving effects in order. I find that so long as you keep the effects happening in order everything runs tons faster. A's fighter moves and attacks, and by now B has already decided on a fireball, and it lands hitting both the DM and A. So A delays their action till after B. Now A is after B the rest of the encounter and it may make buffing hard.
fatal error 10-30-07, 11:56 AM	Intriguing system. I'm not sure if it would speed things up for my group, or slow them down more as comander-itis spread among the group with everyone trying to work out their planned actions a group. A's fighter moves and attacks, and by now B has already decided on a fireball, and it lands hitting both the DM and A. So is that a feature of your system, that two PCs decided what to do but couldn't notify each other about it? Or is that one of the occasional purposefully friend-hurting fireballs? Overall, however, it seems like it should work. The only thing that might get tricky is resolution order. If I clump them into one group like the OP, then actions might have to change based on partially resolved rounds. If PC A decides to charge the Orc, but PC B shoots the Orc in the face and kills it, does A still charge? Should A have made the attack rather than B? I'm afraid it could get confusing if everyone is resolving actions at once.
Krusk 10-30-07, 12:43 PM	So is that a feature of your system, that two PCs decided what to do but couldn't notify each other about it? Or is that one of the occasional purposefully friend-hurting fireballs? I was probably unclear. Instead of hitting their friend with a fireball, they delay and go after their friend so they don't hit them. Sorry about that.
Legdiwena 10-30-07, 01:10 PM	Seems like that would cause more confusion and take more time than the current system. Everyone gets a turn anyway, sit back and enjoy game when it's not your turn.