Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 ddubious Jan 28, 2012 6:19:03	HOW TO HIDE SIDE-INITIATIVE, SUBTLY Addition - This doesn't "HIDE" side initiative perfectly, because it uses side-initiative. What it does do is introduce it in a way where players make no changes to how their own initiatives work. If you choose to test run this without letting them know for a few battles, you can. Decide whether its right for you before you show it to them. The goal here is not to disrupt or change player initiative mechanics and to solve a few issues with side initiative. This is for DM's who like side initiative, but have a few roadblock issues with it. If you hate all of side initiative, this is not for you. Why would you want to use and hide an initiative system you didn't like? Don't like it - don't use it. For those of you unaware, side initiative is when all heroes go, and then all villains go, or vice versa. This would usually replace individual initiative, but it has its faults - mainly... - initiative bonuses don't matter anymore (why invest in Improved Initiative?) - some class features (like a rogue's "First Strike") are actually harder to use since your slowed down to the party average (or just a plain d20) - called the "Doorway Dilemma", melee monsters pile toward the doorway when they win initiative and the heroes never enter the room until the battle's over - it's very powerful if your entire side goes first. - some players don't like it - it ruins some game mechanics about turns and saving throws when the healer can always give you first aid before you take ongoing damage SOLUTION? HIDE IT! First, figure out an average initiative modifier for your monsters. It'll be between the highest and lowest initiatives among the monsters. Mathematicians might want to use a "weighted average", but most of us can eye-ball it. Have a solo monster? You should probably use his modifier. Mostly minions? Use theirs. A good mix? Eye-ball it. Remember - It'll be between the highest and lowest initiative modifiers. Add 10 to the average modifier. That's the initiative of every monster. Have the heroes roll initiative and go as normal, but use all your monster on their turn. DONE! An example. Say you have 5 heroes, A, B, C, D, and E. They all roll initiative, but only B and D beat the monsters. The combat order, if we continued from round to round, would look like this... B D monsters A C E B D monsters A C E B D monsters etc.. Notice how, after round 1, all the heroes go in a bundle, then all the monsters do too?. We didn't need to ignore initiative for the heroes - it still works for them in beating the monsters round 1. No hero is made slower by his allies, and we don't need to let the players decide who's going first (initiative still decides that). We even beat the Doorway Dilemma, since PCs who win initiative still go first! Now, the heroes can still ALL LOSE by rolling low or ALL WIN by rolling high, but they could do that anyway in the normal initiative system! If your heroes don't like side initiative, nothing has changed on their end. Have your monsters go in any order they want - in groups, by initiative modifier, or by importance - it doesn't really matter. If your players like, or grow to like, side initiative, do initiative this way to see which players 'Jump the Gun' and go first, then fall into plain old side initiative. (Here, B and D would go, then all monsters, then all heroes, then all monsters, etc.). The beauty here is that you're using side initiative. But you're not. Woah! Hold on! Someone pointed out how Readying and Delaying might be confusing now! Readying - The old action readying used to move your new initiative to just before the creature you interrupted. Now, you'd instead be moved to before the entire monster turn. This means you can ready without ever really losing initiative (to monsters), as you'd still act before them in the next round. Readying is much better than it was, but is still limited by what you declare you're doing. Readying still takes a bit of thought as players must decide what standard action they'd like to take AND when to take (under what circumstances). Don't let players ready just 'a spell' or 'an attack'. Have them say 'basic attack', 'charge', or 'sleep'. Delaying is, however, much worse. While you can still delay until after a friend, delaying until after one enemy (but before another) causes problems. You don't want heroes delaying to go INSIDE the enemy turn, though they might want. For this reason, I my players can't delay into the enemy turn. No delaying until after a monster - you lose your turn. Not everyone likes this, so there are alternatives. The harsh one is to let them go after one monster (before another monster) when they decide to act, but thereafter go just after the monsters in the normal hero turn. Since it uses their coming turn, they'd be losing 2 rounds to take a full one between enemies. A nicer version could be to allow an initiative check when the player takes the delayed turn. If he beats the monster initiative, he'll still get to go before them next round. (He holds full round to go between monsters with that same full round, no penalty). If he fails, then he loses the two turns to take one, like above. Effects on you still end like in normal delaying rules. So Readying is better than it used to be, Delaying is gone completely (or is risky).
#2 Bohrdumb Jan 28, 2012 13:20:25	I dislike 'side initiative.' It's far too easy for a fight to get completely out of hand when monsters are actually using all of their abilities. It's just plain bad.
#3 AbdulAlhazred Jan 28, 2012 16:16:48	The 'doorway dilemma' still exists, and it is really the main flaw. Most of the other stuff is just a matter of expectation or details of the particular game design. In your implementation you also have the 'focus fire problem' where all the monsters going together will most likely fell the most important PC target as they all one after another get their turn. This may not be too big a problem with a whole bunch of melee monsters that can't all GET to the one PC, but the more artillery etc you have, the worse it gets. I'm also rather puzzled as to what the advantage might be of having one side go first.
#4 thespaceinvader Jan 28, 2012 16:24:07	Honestly, this doesn't hide 'us-and-them' initiative at all.  As soon as you get past the first round, it just starts going en bloc.
#5 ddubious Jan 28, 2012 17:56:39	I dislike 'side initiative.' It's far too easy for a fight to get completely out of hand when monsters are actually using all of their abilities. It's just plain bad. I see that issue as well, but the fact I've dealt with using normal initiative for 24 levels of play over 2 and a half years with 6 players is that it happens anyways - monsters still do go on similar initiatives, one after another, particularly when you have all minions on their own init (together) and all standards-guards on their own init (together), and all your mages on their own.... etc. Its soooo easy for monsters who already group initiative like that to hit the same number bracket in initiative and act together. And well it is sad to see them striking together in one big wave, it still happens in the majority of combats. Its not really a flaw of side initiative alone, though I have to agree that it is present more often here. Its a problem with ever allowing monsters to act on close initiative, sometimes because you used batched initiative (all minions together, all standards together, which seems to be a standard for DMs), or sometimes because you rolled that way. How overpowered is it that we've been able to ignore it in standard play when its come up? It can happen anyways, in smaller groups more often, but in larger groups just as easily if you're using batched initiative. I know batched initiative isn't the book rule, but so many people use it, especially for minions. With 3 or less types of creatures in a battle, they often act on similar initiatives anyways. I don't think using an average init for the monsters, at 10 + their modifier, is overpowered. If I rolled init for each group, and had them all delay to the slowest one, they start a little later but do the same thing. That cannot be as overpowered as it seems to you, as I can take standard initiatives and makes a conscious choice to have enemies delay to act together. Its not a DM super move that kills PCs.
#6 ddubious Jan 28, 2012 18:11:33	Honestly, this doesn't hide 'us-and-them' initiative at all.  As soon as you get past the first round, it just starts going en bloc. True, its not actually hidden. Sorry for that misrepresentation. I should have said that you're not changing how players roll initiative (and associated bonuses to it), and you're not asking them to choose amongst themselves who goes first and who goes last. I should have said its tries for side initiative without asking for any change in how the players are used to playing with their initiatives. 'Hide' was the wrong word.
#7 ddubious Jan 28, 2012 18:31:14	The 'doorway dilemma' still exists, and it is really the main flaw. Most of the other stuff is just a matter of expectation or details of the particular game design. In your implementation you also have the 'focus fire problem' where all the monsters going together will most likely fell the most important PC target as they all one after another get their turn. This may not be too big a problem with a whole bunch of melee monsters that can't all GET to the one PC, but the more artillery etc you have, the worse it gets. I'm also rather puzzled as to what the advantage might be of having one side go first. The Doorway Dilemma exists only as much as it did in normal initiative. The main source of that issue comes from an entire side going before the next *at the start* of battle. With the normal odds of besting opponents and getting melee characters in the room before they can be hedged out, I haven't experienced the differe0nce - it occurs as often in this initiative as it does in standard. True, its not a solution to the problem on the whole, just as it applies to Side Initiative - just the problem that switching to Side Initiative added to games. It helps reduce the problem to its normal levels. The initiative style here is so much closer to normal initiative that many people realize. I made a post for someone else here about how a touch of delaying by monsters makes this initiative system happen anyways. Is it overpowered for a DM to do that? I haven't been worried about the focus fire issue you suggest because focus firing happens in a normal battles anyway - I've been headhunted by monsters myself on vastly different initiatives. As a DM, I make a habit of reminding players that "Red means go" - if their bloodied, monsters know it and gun them down. And artillery? They can focus fire anyways, on different inits, over great distances. They do not need to go at once. Being so similar to how it already runs, I honestly have not experienced the difference in focus firing that you suggest could exist. To the argument over the advantage of side initiative - its a matter of taste. Some people like it, some people hate it. This initiative system was created because I (as DM) liked how side-init was played, but the players were concerned about feats, items, and the 'Doorway Dilemma'. I know I had the right to make my own choice as DM, but I also had the duty to entertain and cater to the players. I made a comprimise, tried it for a bit without telling them, and am now considering moving into it wholesale. Don't use this if you don't like side-initiative - it is meant for the people who want to use side initiative but hit roadbloacks introducing to their players. I should have written that uptop myself.
#8 Myck Jan 30, 2012 13:23:49	I have a question: Is your group so disciplined that they players don't get bored and go off on side converstations while you run all your bad guys?  It's hard enough to keep everyone engaged even when different people are going at different times.  If everyone's turn was over at the same time then they have 2-5 minutes while I run NPCs to go off on tangents together.  Does that not happen when you do this?  How do you overcome this?
#9 Zathris Jan 30, 2012 13:38:40	And how do you plan on handling readied actions or PCs that delay? Just have monsters delay next round so that their initiative goes back into being a block? I can think of several situations where multiple PCs would ready or delay every round.
#10 mvincent Jan 30, 2012 15:29:17	ddubious is correct: I used this exact method for years (several hundred games, many of them in public, official venues even): it works great and can speed up play dramatically (since it allows slow players to not be a bottleneck, or even for players to go simultaneously). My house rules is: "All monsters act on the same initiative. Player initiative determines who goes before the monsters on the first round, but after the monsters act the players can generally go in any order they wish (thanks to delaying and such)." Some points: A) Averaged initiative reduces 'swingyness" (i.e. reduces chances of accidental TPK) B) Monsters going at the same time can increase swingyness (by ganging up on a target), but (assuming the PC's 'delay' until after the leader), downed PC's generally don't miss a turn, effectively negating this effect (but still effectively making the battle seem more tense). Acting together provides the PC's with other benefits too (and can increase teamwork). C) Delays and readied actions in the middle of another side's turn can require initiative adjudication afterwards. I haven't had a problem resolving this yet though. At worst I can roll a die to decide (low=bad for player, high=good for player) D)  Near simultaneous play can result in one PC's actions invalidating another's. This can usually be solved by retconning the latter PC's actions. E) Low level rogues that roll low on init may have a slightly harder time gaining CA. This is pretty negligible though since: they are better off targeting the same creature as the rest of the party, they should have other methods to gain CA, they have an easier time gaining CA if the party acts together, and at higher levels this method makes it less likely that a monster will have a higher init. F) Playing so fast and loose with initiative can cause confusion with effect durations. This can usually be solved by:  1) Recall what order they went in last round, or  2) remember that each PC can benefit just once from an effect that ends on the caster's next turn, or  3) roll a die to decide (low=bad for player, high=good for player)
#11 mvincent Jan 30, 2012 15:47:35	Is your group so disciplined that they players don't get bored and go off on side converstations while you run all your bad guys? Since the method accelerates play (as alluded to on DMG p.32 & 38), the players actually have a shorter time between turns. In fact I often have (slower) players say "What do you mean it's my turn again... I just went!".  ('that's because the rest of the players were able to go* while you were pondering your actions, and I pre-rolled the monsters, so now it's back to you again... but take your time, no worries') * Instead of getting bored and going off on side converstations
#12 ddubious Jan 31, 2012 7:18:20	I have a question: Is your group so disciplined that they players don't get bored and go off on side converstations while you run all your bad guys?  It's hard enough to keep everyone engaged even when different people are going at different times.  If everyone's turn was over at the same time then they have 2-5 minutes while I run NPCs to go off on tangents together.  Does that not happen when you do this?  How do you overcome this? That's an awesome question - my players absolutely talk all the time. I've had that issue over the last year, not just the last month while I was using this version of side initiative. For my "turn", I tend to run monsters fairly quickly - definitely not something everyone does. The reason I tried to use side initiative in the first place was that no one was paying attention to when they went, even when I hung the initiative list in large print from my DM screen. Larger combats, even simple paragon ones, had lengthy turns. They always new when they went, but weren't listening to the cues. Its hard for them to abandon a conversation when only one of then actually had to take a turn. When its the heroes turn, and I accounce it, their a greater level of respect for holding a conversation - and players actually seem to be waiting till each pair that was talking is done each of their turns. So far (only a few sessions run with it) it seems like the players are a touch more involved during their own turns. Not really during the monster turn, but I'll take what I can get. No, it didn't solve conversations at the table completely. I know it made my monsters run faster, and the players a bit too. Not the massive improvement I hoped for a few weeks ago, but better - without adding a drop of work (Actually saves me rolling for monsters).
#13 ddubious Jan 31, 2012 7:47:55	And how do you plan on handling readied actions or PCs that delay? Just have monsters delay next round so that their initiative goes back into being a block? I can think of several situations where multiple PCs would ready or delay every round. Readied actions still work - after taking it, the heroes' initiative goes just before the one he interrupted (monsters +1). Its true that the heroes couldn't split the monster turn on following round because they're rest to before ALL of them, but since they'd always be reset to 'quicker than the ALL monsters' (in this version), it's an advantage the players didn't have before - they lose less initiative when readying attacks. Their standard action could instead declare one they'd interrupt the enemy turn with, but would otherwise just juggle their own initiative to last amongst the party. With delaying, you can delay within the hero round with little penalty (again, just juggling the initiative of the heroes amongst themselves). If your players 'abused' this initiative juggling, they would actually create a truer side initiative - where the heroes decide who does what first amongst themselves (though round 1 would still play differently). With the monsters able to that themselves, the battle does play differently. I like it, but its different. This whole system is indeed a gateway drug to side-initiative. On delaying until after the monsters: a hero used to be able to delay until after one monster but before another monster. If I wanted to still allow heroes to split the monster turn, they'd wait until one finished his turn, take their full turn, and NOT take their turn in the following hero round. Delaying changes your initiative to after the creature you chose to act after. Since I don't want the heroes STAYING inside the monster turn, that new initiative would be one less than ALL the monsters, a turn they just played out when coming back into initiative. Delaying is decidedly worse than it used to be. Rather than slowing down your initiative a bit, you'd be missing a whole round just act at an odd time. You might think that's bad - I get that. I don't mind it, since I've played plenty of tabletop rpgs without either readying or delaying, but I understand that its not a selling feature for people who wanted action delaying to stay around.
#14 ddubious Jan 31, 2012 7:57:50	ddubious is correct: I used this exact method for years (several hundred games, many of them in public, official venues even): it works great and can speed up play dramatically (since it allows slow players to not be a bottleneck, or even for players to go simultaneously). My house rules is: "All monsters act on the same initiative. Player initiative determines who goes before the monsters on the first round, but after the monsters act the players can generally go in any order they wish (thanks to delaying and such)." Some points: A) Averaged initiative reduces 'swingyness" (i.e. reduces chances of accidental TPK) B) Monsters going at the same time can increase swingyness (by ganging up on a target), but (assuming the PC's 'delay' until after the leader), downed PC's generally don't miss a turn, effectively negating this effect (but still effectively making the battle seem more tense). Acting together provides the PC's with other benefits too (and can increase teamwork). C) Delays and readied actions in the middle of another side's turn can require initiative adjudication afterwards. I haven't had a problem resolving this yet though. At worst I can roll a die to decide (low=bad for player, high=good for player) D)  Near simultaneous play can result in one PC's actions invalidating another's. This can usually be solved by retconning the latter PC's actions. E) Low level rogues that roll low on init may have a slightly harder time gaining CA. This is pretty negligible though since: they are better off targeting the same creature as the rest of the party, they should have other methods to gain CA, they have an easier time gaining CA if the party acts together, and at higher levels this method makes it less likely that a monster will have a higher init. F) Playing so fast and loose with initiative can cause confusion with effect durations. This can usually be solved by:  1) Recall what order they went in last round, or  2) remember that each PC can benefit just once from an effect that ends on the caster's next turn, or  3) roll a die to decide (low=bad for player, high=good for player) Nice! Its good to have some feedback from a MUCH longer use of the system. Not exactly a pioneer, was I? Bah! I rather play with a good system than one I invented. Plus, I figured someone had to have done this before. Avoiding using dice to resolve complex issues, I'll still try and mix in a rule about readying and delaying. I am quite willing to ret-con small snafus if the players begin acting in any order like a real side-initiative. I already see a few of them rolling dice at the same time - a fact I'm okay with because I trust (most of) them, and tend to stand-up and loom during battle just to move minis and make wild hand gestures. As before, this way is better if you wanted side-initiative. If people rolling dice at the same time bothers anyone (and I know a few DMs it does), you can skip this system - or try it as is, with all heroes acting near one another in initiative, but still one at a time. Again - super thanks for the feedback.