OK: by Dirt Simple I mean that there is no complicated interplay between initiative and intent, execution, and effect. By 'complicated' I mean (1) moving back and forth between possible outcomes of each step before implementing it and (2) not too much in terms of multiple die rolling or other handling time weirdnesses.

But if that doesn't make sense to you you can use your pretheoretic sense for simplicity to make suggestions too.

Here are some examples:

(1) Everyone rolls a die/looks up a stat and declares intent in that order, with execution and effect immediately following intent for each individual.

(2) In games where it is an assumption that (a) there is a party and (b) the party members are roughly on 'the same side', have the party negotiate their actions in a 'free and clear' type deal (or declare intents in strict order). Then execute and determine effect for party actions all at once; then the opposition takes a turn in the same manner.

(3) Everyone specifies intent, either by stating it in a fixed order or doing a 'free and clear'. Declared intent influences what determines initiative; this roll either is or proceeds directly into determination of execution and effect.

What I'm getting at is initiative systems with easily graspable structure and influence on the order of play. I understand initiative rules as answering the question about the order descriptions either get introduced to the SiS directly or it gets rolled for whether they enter the SiS, when there is a dispute about what that order should be.

A fourth 'dirt simple' system would be No Initiative: players never engage with the resolution system(s) to determine what scenes, conflicts, or tasks will be resolved in what order, but only over which descriptions will enter the SiS.

This is actually just Drama initiative resolution though, not No Initiative. The idea here would be that stuff is just resolved in the order that players bring it up, or as negotiated if people bring different stuff up at different times. But I thought it was worth mentioning. With traditional task resolution this would be a disaster but with 'conflict' or 'scene' resolution it might not be a problem at all.

Are you asking about IIEE, or just turn order? Could you elaborate a little on what you're looking for?

Anyway, here's how I did it in The Mountain Witch --

• *Everyone* declares their intent.
• People who are "working together" get seperated into groups.
• Everyone then rolls their dice (each person only rolls 1d6).
• The highest die from each group is kept and then compared from the highest die from the opposing group. The margin of success determines, well, success.
• The player who rolled the highest die narrates the conflict, making sure to incorporate what all the characters were trying to do.


This system is distinctively team/group-based, and since there can only be two sides to any given conflict, traditional "turn-order" is irrelevent.

Hi Tim -

I don't think that it makes sense to talk about turn order independent of IIEE - I don't know what the 'turn' amounts to in that case. So both.

Your system would count as another example of what I'm talking about though. The 'breaking into groups' part is the only thing that I would regard as 'complex' and since it only is one step the system as a whole still seems 'simple' to me.

With your step 1 though - is there any order to the declaration of intents imposed, or can people change their mind if someone else does something that gives them a new idea or interferes with their old one? If so, what is it? If not, do you say in the current rules-text that this is a 'free and clear' phase where everyone can revise until everyone is happy?

Step #1 is definitely a "clear and free" type situation, though I don't use the term. Players are allowed to negoiate what they want to do, up until the point dice are rolled. Actually, Step #1 & #2 tend to happen simultaneously.

Player A: "I'm going to attack the tengu!"
Player B: "I'm going to help A."
Player C: "If they're doing that, I'm going to attack the oni."

Heya,

Another possibility is to have the initiative, execution, and effect all in one single roll that may or may not involve a dice pool. This way, handling time is reduced.

Peace,

-Troy

Multiverser's initiative is based on chance of success in the declared action. That is, if two people are attacking each other, each rolls against his chance to succeed against the other. If only one rolls successfully, he goes first; if both roll successfully, the better (higher) roll goes first; if both fail, the one who rolled closest to his chance to succeed goes first.

As between groups, the best chance of success on each side is used.

This gives the advantage to the better combatant, but except in the rare cases of no hit situations allows some chance to the lesser. (In a no hit situation, the side that cannot hit cannot hit first.)

If either side is using time-based actions only (e.g., running a distance, casting a spell, starting a machine) their initiative is determined a different way. That's an unusual situation.

--M. J. Young

Better Games’ Barony RPG used the following dice-free, dirt-simple initiative system:

Conflict is divided into three phases: advantage, opposition, and response.

Player-characters (unless surprised) get to choose when to act, either before their opponents, in the advantage phase, or after, in the response phase. The opposition always acts in the opposition phase.

Acting in the advantage phase, as well going before the opposition, confers some kind of offensive bonus. The drawback is that the PC can’t act during the response phase. So they won’t be able to do anything about any incoming sustained during the opposition phase.

Acting in the advantage phase can sometimes give you the drop on weaker/weakened opponents, possible preventing them from acting effectively in the opposition phase.

Acting in the response phase gives a PC the choice of attacking their opposition or blocking a ‘hit’ just sustained, on themselves or another PC. The drawback is that the PC forgoes the offensive bonus associated with acting in the advantage phase.

Acting in the response phases can be useful if you need to gauge an opponent’s mettle, provide defensive cover for the ‘first-in’ section or employee funky powers.

If PC opposes PC, both act in the advantage phase—no time for finesse.

René

Sean wrote: A fourth 'dirt simple' system would be No Initiative: players never engage with the resolution system(s) to determine what scenes, conflicts, or tasks will be resolved in what order, but only over which descriptions will enter the SiS.

This is actually just Drama initiative resolution though, not No Initiative. The idea here would be that stuff is just resolved in the order that players bring it up, or as negotiated if people bring different stuff up at different times. But I thought it was worth mentioning. With traditional task resolution this would be a disaster but with 'conflict' or 'scene' resolution it might not be a problem at all.

A real simple initiative system I used as a mod for D&D follows:

* Turn uniform cardboard markers face down and mix.
* Turn them over one at a time, calling for action.

There's no side aggregate, though most combat is functionally two-sided. Also, you can't layer a margin for Effect. But it's bloody fast and uncomplicated.

Rage's initiative system is a little weird, but definitely simple.

When you're in combat there's a character pack, with a card representing each character. This is used for a variety of things. Initiative is one of them.

Combat begins by picking a character card. They get to act first. If their action succeeds then they get to act again. They continue acting until one of their actions fail. Their card is then shuffled back into the pack and another card is drawn and the process repeats.

I've yet to test this in actual play, but it *should* work reasonably as long as the fights are vaguely balanced (it makes it very easy for a single character to wade through a horde of mooks. That's sortof deliberate, but may leave some of the other players feeling left out if a single character can kill too many at a time).

Everyone has a speed rating (5-8 average. Max 15).
Characters act in order of speeds for declaring actions and performing actions.

A slower character reacting to a faster character, usualy to defend when a faster character attacks the slower one, gives the slower character a penalty equal to the difference in speeds.
The faster character lowers his difficulty by the difference in speeds when defending against a slower character.

Note: The amount of penaly/bonus provide from differing speeds may be caped/lowered as playtesting continues.

A gamist system I designed with my friends just had each character recieve tokens each "turn" and they different values for attack/casting magic/defending/etc. Do different tasks set them back different amounts. If you kept attacking the same guy and he kept defending, he'd never get enough tokens to attack.

The neat bit was that if your allies were attacked you could spend tokens to defend them, or if an ally attacked an enemy, you could join their attack (getting past the single defense that had been put up). It made everyone pay close attention and work together just to survive (in a system where the reward system rewarded individual efforts).

It was my favorite part of the system. A little like the Feng Shui init system, from what I understand. It was pretty simple (or so it seemed to us DnDers) when you got use to it (the starting values were adjustable at character creation), and the stare offs as people waited to see if the enemy would attack before attacking themselves was great. That said, it probably deserved a bit more complication, in order to avoid arguments over proper declaration at each turn.

Spin the bottle.

O.K., maybe not a bottle; but I designed a board game (not yet in print) in which a player rolled the dice at the end of his turn to see whose turn came next. It could be his again. You could quite reasonably do the same thing in a role playing game: give every character a number, or even give every character a number of numbers according to how good he is in combat. When that number is rolled, it is his turn; then roll again to see whose turn is next, and it might be his turn again. In the context of a truly mismatched fight, this would show itself as the better combatant constantly having his turn to hit, the other not getting an in.

For an interesting twist that might have strategic ramifications, the person whose number is rolled gets to decide who attacks next. There would be a strong tendency for players to favor letting their best fighter hit, but if field position matters they would sometimes have to let someone else attack. You would explain this as everyone working together to give their best fighter the opportunity to do what he does best.

It seems pretty simple to me.

--M. J. Young