Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Chaos_Infidel 08-20-06, 02:31 PM	So my DM likes to have the slowest initiative people state their actions first, followed by the next highest up until we reach the fastest character. Whatever I state that I will do is not allowed to be changed, so if I decide to attack a certain gnoll and he dies, I lose my action. Can someone please explain the reasoning behind this? I am completly against it, and need advice on how to approach my DM on the issue.
Stev Beren 08-20-06, 02:52 PM	Well, he seems to be clunky with the "Can't change it if the situation changes" bit, but the intention is probably to allow the fast initiative people to act with foreknowledge of what the others are doing. .
Alric 08-20-06, 02:57 PM	He probably figures that your so slow that by the time you actually swing your sword the guys already dead. Everyone is supposed to be acting at the same time, so the way he does it reflects that you all made your move then it resolves by who moves the fastest. To be honest that is needlessly complex and he really should just stick to the rules. Also thats not really how it works either because its possible for someone to delay and they don't actually become slower they just waited a few seconds. Actually thats how I would deal with it. Bring up how readying an attack and delaying doesn't make any sense in his system. Because by his logic if someone waits a few seconds hes suddenly faster than everyone else in the area for the rest of the battle.
Witchblade 08-20-06, 03:16 PM	I agree, it's a silly way of handling initiative. Besides, it makes initiative very, very powerful. It also encourages extreme meta-gaming.
Bartok 08-20-06, 03:17 PM	It is the way initiative is handled in some other game systems I've played. Obviously he likes the fact that initiative is very important when it is done this way. Rather than trying to force him back to the standard (which I find is a decision they have to make on their own once an idea proves to not be viable), think of ways to improve it so that it keeps the flavour he wants without so much of the screwing-you-over factor that is driving you nuts. I think you could try suggesting something like: If you want to do something other than your declared action (the target is dead, or you want to take advantage of something that has happened), the changed action is at some sort of penalty (-2?) or maybe happens at the end of the round (especially for things that don't require a roll). That would represent the slower initiative person being caught off guard, yet still allow for them to take actions when the planned action isn't an option. Good luck, Bartok
MistWolf 08-20-06, 04:15 PM	Tell the DM you will hold your action (or whatever it's called) until you can determine where your attack is needed. When it comes to your turn in the init, you'll be able to act. I would not care to play this way in D&D unless the baddies were tough enough to survive a few rounds of attacks. It's ok in Battletech because of the nature of the game- not D&D. The only way I would tolerate this system is if the DM stated what his side will be doing on their init before the round begins. Also, in Battletech, all moves are made before either side may make an attack
Millennium 08-20-06, 04:20 PM	I see what he's doing: he's implementing initiative as a stack, a concept often seen in computer science and recent game design." If you've ever played Magic: the Gathering, then you've seen stacks before: this is how instants work. This concept gets its name from a stack of cards. The idea is that you are not allowed to pick up the stack, and so all you can work with is the top card. You do this by pushing cards (or, in this case, actions) onto the top of the stack or popping cards off of the top. If you try this with a real stack of cards, you'll notice that as long as you keep to these rules, the last card you pushed onto the stack will always be the first one you pop off of it. For that reason, stacks are sometimes called LIFOs: "Last In, First Out. This is why your DM is asking you to declare your actions "backwards": you're pushing them onto the stack. He then pops the actions off when they resolve, and the result is that they resolve in the proper order. It's not complex when you know the theory behind it. I'm not attempting to justify this system, only to explain it. It's not complex at all, but D&D combat is meant to be abstract, and stack-based initiative is more concrete. Abstract systems are not inherently any better or worse than concrete ones, but the two styles do not mix well: when you have a system that uses one style, adding bits and pieces of the other makes it too easy to break. If the DM wants more detail in his combats that's his prerogative, but he should look into another combat system.
Cifer 08-20-06, 04:31 PM	As others have explained, the system is used in several other systems, including the World of Darkness games. It does make sense there - combats are not described as precisely as they are in D&D, so slower combatants usually still have a good chance while faster ones are given a slight advantage. In D&D, however, there are too many ways to make actions useless for this to be a workable solution. The thing he tries to do can be implemented much better by ready action/delay action.
Crash01234567890 08-20-06, 06:15 PM	It really just depends on the style of game he's wanting to run, it can work very well with some gaming and DMing styles and isn't a bad way of doing things just different. It's used in World of Darkness I know, and I've used it in D&D before, but if the player's action cannot be performed I usually give them a move action to replace it as I don't feel that jipping them from acting at all is fair. I do believe that in this system something must be lost, otherwise having to state your action is kinda pointless no? Honestly if you don't like the way your DM runs things find a new one. Don't ask for a big mac at a pizza hut, find a DM that suits your needs.
Nom 08-20-06, 06:41 PM	Stack-based initiative systems are based on the idea of a discrete round, which D&D 3rd edition does not have. This is something many people used to other systems (including previous editions of D&D) fail to comprehend. D&D does not have absolute rounds any more than Monopoly or Snakes and Ladders has absolute rounds. Initiative determines who goes first, and thereafter everyone just takes their turn in order (special initiative actions notwithstanding). Time for effects is measured based on whose turn they started on and lasts once (or X times) round the table. You can track absolute rounds if you like, but it has no more effect on D&D play than on Monopoly. Changing to a stack-based system makes three major changes to the ruleset. The first is absolute rounds. The second is that turns are no longer atomic. The third (which isn't stated but which I'm sure is there) is variable initiative. There is a reason why turn based is used in preference to this. Stack-based initiative is good when the game wants to model the mental game - who pysches who out. It makes initiative the all-important mechanic, since it allows the winner to both react and to act first. For simple tactical modelling, it's both clumsy and broken. The problem you highlight is the big problem with non-atomic turns. Characters declare actions, and then the situation changes, and then ...? A system designed to allow later acting characters to invalidate the actions of earlier acting characters really needs the entire resolution mechanic designed around this, not tacked on post-hoc. Absolute rounds introduce a different problem, which is that the effect of a characters actions varies by when in the round they act. If an earlier character stuns a later character, then the second loses a turn. If a later character stuns an earlier character, then either the first doesn't lose a turn or the stun must arbitrarily extend into the next round. Variable initiative exacerbates this, since there is always the possibility of the loser getting a "double-turn". These mechanisms add randomness to the action resolution sequence, but all they give back is that it becomes harder to actually plan anything meaningful. That's a long way of saying that your problem is intractable without completely overhauling the D&D action resolution engine. Your DM is trying to impose a non-cyclic system best used in loose resolution engines to a turn-based cyclic system designed for discrete modelling. It works about as well as stuffing a horse into your car's engine bay in place of the motor.
a_psh 08-20-06, 07:30 PM	It's not complex at all, but D&D combat is meant to be abstract, and stack-based initiative is more concrete.More concrete? More concrete how? (I understand how the scheme works, I'm just asking you to define "concrete" and explain how stack-based initiative fits the bill better than circular initiative.)
archerpwr 08-20-06, 07:45 PM	Stack based is more concrete because it does not allow the low initiative people to be fluid and reactive with their actions ie their actions are set in stone once announced and cannont be changed. cycle initiative allows the characters to adapt each turn and have a much more fluid and adaptive strategy. If you want to act as a team in cycle initiative the slow initiative players must react to the high initiative players in a way that helps. in stack system the high initiative players must try to help the low initiative players and much more chance is involved in whether a specific plan works out because of the much more set in stone action sequence.
a_psh 08-20-06, 08:50 PM	Stack based is more concrete because it does not allow the low initiative people to be fluid and reactive with their actions ie their actions are set in stone once announced and cannont be changed.This is not "concrete" as in "abstract vs. concrete". Nothing about the stack-based approach is inherently more realistic or definite than it would be for cyclic initiative. Slower people don't necessarily telegraph their intent, faster people don't always wait for the slower people to telegraph their intent before they make their move, combatants generally don't jam up for 6 seconds at a time when circumstances change around them, and it's really hard to get in a whole spell or several strikes between someone commiting to an attack and following through.
StevenO 08-20-06, 09:49 PM	Back in 2ed when initiative was rolled every round having the slow declare first wasn't a bad idea. Of course rounds were one minute instead of six seconds. In the present initiative normally only matters on the first round when order is established and then combat just goes around in cycles. What your DM is asking for is out of line. If the characters with a high init want to see what someone else is going to do before committing they can use either delay or set up a triggered action for when the other guys go.
Crash01234567890 08-20-06, 10:41 PM	What your DM is asking for is out of line. If the characters with a high init want to see what someone else is going to do before committing they can use either delay or set up a triggered action for when the other guys go. No, it's really not out of line at all. What it does is incourage the use of tactics and planning over just burst in and hack+slash everything. It's all about the feel the DM wants the game to have. It gives the game more of a cinematic style to the combat because the DM already knows what is going to happen later in the round. I'm not saying it's good for every group, but if it fits the feel the DM is wanting to generate then it's a good system. Now if you don't like it then don't play in the game. Honestly the game is about having fun and the DM puts more time and effort into it than most of the PCs combined, if you don't like his style then don't badger him about it go find another group.
Dragonteuthis 08-20-06, 10:54 PM	What it does is incourage the use of tactics and planning over just burst in and hack+slash everything. It also encourages extreme metagaming. The players can take two, three, minutes to set up attacks, but how would the characters know that the fighter is going to turn around and charge halfway across the room in the middle of the combat? It also penalizes planning in the sense that if things do not go exactly as planned, actions will get wasted. Surely there should be some form of adaptation available, even with a system such as this. People are not robots that freeze up for six seconds if something unexpected crops up (especially veterans of combat).
Crash01234567890 08-20-06, 11:19 PM	It also encourages extreme metagaming. The players can take two, three, minutes to set up attacks, but how would the characters know that the fighter is going to turn around and charge halfway across the room in the middle of the combat? It doesn't encourage metagaming anymore than the standard system does. It isn't anymore realistic or unrealistic than the standard system. I does carry a different feel than the standard system, and it does encourage tactics. And by tactics I mean plans along the lines of "Hey guys I'll take the big guy don't worry about him" not super complex ones. As for why they can tell what you're about to do, they see your intent. The fighter fixes the enemy with a stare and pushes off, the mage raises his hand full of powder to cast his spell. Everything is still happening at once just like the regular round, it's just that the fast characters are able to react to it as it's happening rather than acting before it happens. A good DM will let you roll bluff to cover up what you're doing so others cannot tell w/o an equal sense motive, but as with every system there are poor DMs. Poor DMing is not the fault of the system just as good DMing is not a sucess of the system. It also penalizes planning in the sense that if things do not go exactly as planned, actions will get wasted. It's really hard for the action to get wasted. Why? Tactics. You say, I'm going to hit Troll A. Then Troll A's turn comes around and he goes I'm going to five foot away. But Fighter B's initiative is higher so he goes I going to move and hit the troll and leave his only escape route back toward the party unless he wants to provoke AoO's form both of us. People are not robots that freeze up for six seconds if something unexpected crops up (especially veterans of combat). If thats how the DM describes it, then it's bad DMing, not the system. You still take the action, it just doesn't do anygood. Not-Taken Charge due to enemy movement: you still charge to the square but enemy leaps away and backs away from you. Not-Taken Attack due to death of enemy: You hack in the goblins face and he slumps forward on your sword, a pincusion of arrows in his back. See, not that hard to explain in ways other than "Oh well you freeze up", which I admit isn't common. Mistakes are common though, as is attacking the same enemies or "killing" enemies at the same time, even with veteran combatants. Especially in combat with larger numbers of fighters.
Alric 08-21-06, 02:12 AM	How can you say there is no metagaming effect? How do you not meta game when you know what everyone is going to do? Oh the dragon is going to breath fire and your at 5 hp, obviously your going to move out of the way. Theres no way to know hes going to do that but because your last to move you do. Thats what metagaming is.
Mitchell 08-21-06, 02:20 AM	It doesn't encourage metagaming anymore than the standard system does... Not necessarily. If the wizard not only has to declare that they are casting fireball, but where they are casting it, then a great hole may open up in the middle of the field. Not saying that they do, just saying they could. If the DM has to declare every option that every hostile is going to take (and if they don't, then this system is utter trash here), then that gives the players prescience. I'm not going to eat a fireball, I'll just move over a few feet. So how does your DM handle delays? Anyone could delay except for, in theory, the last guy to go. I wouldn't buy into this, personally. I have played Battletech, and the "Loser moves first" system worked there, but it was still simultaneous fire, allowing the initiative winner to potentially establish an advantageous position, but it didn't mean that they attacked first and if they destroyed the target then there was no return fire... It was still coming, and not called until all moves were completed. I don't see that here. If you have a problem with this then I can only suggest speaking to the DM about it. If the rest of the players enjoy it, then it will be a harder sell to get them to switch, but if most, or all, of the players feel the same way you do, then the DM should adjust, including making concessions to players that may have taken the improved initiative feat based on the sudden strength of initiative.
a_psh 08-21-06, 02:22 AM	How can you say there is no metagaming effect? How do you not meta game when you know what everyone is going to do? Oh the dragon is going to breath fire and your at 5 hp, obviously your going to move out of the way. Theres no way to know hes going to do that but because your last to move you do. Thats what metagaming is.The whole point of the alternate system is to give you that knowledge. Your fast character can see the dragon about to breathe and duck out of the way. "It's not a bug, it's a feature," as some people would say. Like I said above, the issue with this is that it somehow assumes rolling low on Initiative is synonymous with telegraphing intent.
a_psh 08-21-06, 02:25 AM	I wouldn't buy into this, personally. I have played Battletech, and the "Loser moves first" system worked there, but it was still simultaneous fire, allowing the initiative winner to potentially establish an advantageous position, but it didn't mean that they attacked first and if they destroyed the target then there was no return fire... It was still coming, and not called until all moves were completed. I don't see that here.When you say "loser moves first", do you mean that there are only two sides to each battle? (Rather than having an Initiative score for each individual character like in D&D?)
Mitchell 08-21-06, 03:20 AM	When you say "loser moves first", do you mean that there are only two sides to each battle? (Rather than having an Initiative score for each individual character like in D&D?) Maybe. Loser is simply low man, but if there were three forces of 12 mechs, then everyone would move according to their own initiative, but it all started with the low man moving first until all 36 had moved. At that time, beginning with low man again, everyone would declare fire, then you would begin the "combat phase". That is part of the problem here. There are no phases for different actions, there is simply your turn to act, and if the DM decides that having bandit "A" run into the area of the fireball that will be coming to get an attack in and (hopefully) die before your dominate turns him into an ally, while the rest of the bandits are fleeing the area to attack with missile weapons is a solid strategy, that is totally metagaming it, and most "normal" players and enemies don't have prescience as an ability. This initiative system is loaded with potential abuses, and I, honestly, don't see what it adds to the game.
a_psh 08-21-06, 03:47 AM	Maybe. Loser is simply low man, but if there were three forces of 12 mechs, then everyone would move according to their own initiative, but it all started with the low man moving first until all 36 had moved. At that time, beginning with low man again, everyone would declare fire, then you would begin the "combat phase".Sorry, what I was asking as whether all of the mechs on one side declared actions together. The Warhammer-style rounds are what really make it work, I think. This initiative system is loaded with potential abuses, and I, honestly, don't see what it adds to the game.I agree. D&D rounds are too blocky for this to work well. There's also all kinds of cans of worms with full attacks, spellcasting, and movement. For example: If I declare my action as a full attack and my enemy then hits me with one attack and moves away, have I just lost all of my actions for that turn?
Chemlak 08-21-06, 07:56 AM	Just a quick precis of the battletech initiative system up to the movement phase... Step one: Roll Initiative Each player rolls 2d6, highest wins Step two: Movement Phase a) The person with the lowest initiative moves (or chooses not to move), one of his mechs b) The next lowest person then moves his c) etc. d) Until - The person with the highest initiative moves one of his mechs Repeat a) through d) until all mechs have been moved. If at any point in time one player has an exact multiple more mechs unmoved than another player, he must move a number of mechs equal to that multiple e.g Number left to move Number moved Player 1 Player 2 Player 1 Player 2 8 5 1 1 7 4 1 1 6 (which is 2x) 3 2 1 4 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 It doesn't matter who won initiative, the result is the same - the person who won initiative will be the last to move. This is not in any way intended to be a comment about preference, purely an illustration of the initiative system which has been mentioned above. [Edited to make sense...]