I was running my system for some old friends the last couple of weeks. I decided a while back that initiative rules were not worth the time they took, but this was the first time I put it into practice.

No-one even noticed that they weren't rolling initiative. Some of these guys were pretty hard-core 3e D&D players, old Champions veterans, that kind of thing. It sped up play, encouraged teamwork, and in general did what I wanted it to do. Not that there are no gains from the kind of complex round pacing you get from an initiative system: I just think they're not worth the time it takes to generate and keep track of the initiative order.

I poked around my books a little and discovered that there were no initiative rules in the original D&D brown books - none at all. The implicit assumption I think was that each 'side' takes a turn, although it doesn't say which side goes first. It does have surprise rules which decide that in some encounters but not all. I guess the 'sighting distance' rule in Underworld and Wilderness Adventures actually seems to imply that the players always go first if not surprised: "you sight the monsters 20-80 feet away, what do you do?"

This is how I do it too. I let the players always go first, as a group, unless I feel like not, in which case I have someone make an Acumen roll to avoid being surprised. If they make it, they maintain the first move as normal. If not, my monsters smack 'em first. Either way I have to give them experience for the roll.

There are no explicit rules offered for initiative in D&D until the Eldritch Wizardry supplement, where a complex system of the usual variety (complete with segments) springs forth fully formed like Athena from the head of Zeus. Yikes.

[This is actually a bit of an oversimplification - each side appears to have rolled 1d6 to see who goes first in Chainmail, and this system was often ported over. But I haven't seen it explicitly cited in the brown books, though I'm rusty after all these years. I've certainly encountered other brown book D&D groups who just took turns in the way I'm describing.]

In terms of managing group dynamics, my hypothesis was that the only time classic RPG initiative matters at all is when two players both want to go first. My surprise rules handle that between player and GM. With two players I suppose I'd have them go off descriptions of action first and then default to Reflexes stunts.

Anyway, the main data point I'm reporting here is that I played a completely traditional RPG and the play experience was generally improved by taking out something people think you 'have' to have: initiative rules. It turns out that more than 95% of the time they don't matter at all, it's just an extra mechanical step between you and the good stuff. I had long thought this but it was nice to get some confirmational testing, about six sessions over two weeks.

Of course, there were rules. The rules were:

- each side takes a turn as a whole until the encounter is at an end
- normally, the players' side goes first. If for some reason the GM wants his side to go first, the players must roll a stunt against an appropriate attribute score (typically Acumen or Reflexes) to maintain their right to go first.
- (some ad hoc mechanism using action descriptions and the stunt system in the rare case when two players both really want their action to get off before another one)

So it's default Karma with optional Fortune subsystems. Point is, it saves a lot of time, and we felt that more was gained than lost.

I make it a point to only use initiative when the mechanic gives players additional input in some place where the input is desired. Otherwise, it is a waste of time and usually not needed.

Do you like any initiative (or turn-order establishing) subsystems?

Hi Tommi,

I've played with a lot of them. It sort of depends what you want. I think that systems like the ones in Sorcerer or Godlike where initiative order gets established by die rolls that also establish other things are kind of cool in terms of handling time (Sorcerer also in terms of usually giving powerful entities full defense without sacrificing their ability to effect the situation, which is a problem in a lot of games IMO). Also, if you like there to be player-level mechanical challenges in scene play, systems where you sacrifice effectiveness for speed (Runeslayers comes to mind) can give you a pretty cool trade off.

But in general I think your approach is good (only roll when needed) and there's a LOT to be said for the 'default' approach of just letting people say what they want to do and responding. I especially like this approach in a context where people often think it wouldn't work - old-school tactical melee games, in dungeons or elsewhere. One reason is that letting everyone brainstorm what they do together often produces powerful ideas for group action that come up relatively less often when you have a stratified turn order. My players were doing all kinds of wacky stuff (they pounded spikes into the roof above a coffin and used it to set up a lasso hanging above the coffin frex - then when they opened the thing they made a stunt roll to winch the wight inside up towards the ceiling, whereupon they peppered her with silver daggers and magic missiles until she broke free, but by that time she only had 3 hit points left and they finished her without any level drains (though when they had first opened the coffin a crack earlier she had killed one of their henchmen that way - they had the good sense to stunt to push it closed right away after that and come up with a plan)).

I really value that kind of player creativity in old-school dungeon-type gaming - in fact, without that, it's either totally or mostly boring to me. I get some satisfaction out of D&D3/Exalted/Riddle of Steel/Burning Wheel type player tactics in the kind of complicated systems that have them, but only a little, and it wears off pretty fast. Whereas I never get tired of players coming up with zany, cool ideas, McGuyvering it, breaking out with improbable diplomatic efforts at the last minute, whatever.

Taking out initiative plus adding a freeform attribute-based stunt system to my fantasy rules (Swordsmen & Sorcerers) seemed to me to powerfully facilitate this aspect of play.

But anyway, even if you don't have my play-preferences, anything that speeds up play is generally better, so that's a general argument that you don't need initiative unless there's a real specific reason for it in your game (as it is in 'character build' games like D&D3 and Exalted, it provides another dimension to improve your effectiveness relative to the system with your character. I don't personally give a shit about that, but I do understand the attraction).

Sean,
Can you provide a summary of the Sorcerer initiative? I don't have the game. I know the basic dice mechanic and roll-over of successes, so no need to explain those.

Otherwise, I find myself agreeing with most of your points. And even some preferences.

There are a lot of nuances in Sorcerer, but basically the part of it I was liking here is this: after everyone proposes actions together ('free and clear' - this negotiates the 'round' with everyone and also facilitates the kind of freeform group creativity I like, so yay Sorcerer), everyone rolls for their action at the same time - a pile of dice based on the relevant stuff to the scene (attributes, good and bad past actions, wounds, clever use of character background, etc.). The high roll wins initiative, and on down the line, leaving those dice on the table until you've acted or aborted (see below).

If someone does something to you before you act, you have a choice between aborting your action (take those dice off the table, you have to wait until next round) and re-rolling a new big shiny pile of dice to defend, or else defending with just one die (yikes!) and keeping your action.

If someone does something to you after you act, though, you get to roll all your dice on defense.

This means two things that I think are good:

1) If you roll crap up front, you can at least pull out and try to salvage things with a good defense roll. On the other hand, if you have the second best roll on the table and the best guy goes after you, it's a really serious risk decision.

2) If a bad-ass character is fighting mooks, or characters are fighting a bad-ass demon, the bad-ass is likely to get their action in first: I don't think of this as 'speed' so much as the ability of the more forceful being to impose their will on the situation. (The giant snake with Stamina 9 may be sluggish, but its actions really dictate what everyone else is going to do, in a sense.) This means they're more likely to have their full defense for the rest of the round. Which makes the powerful solo character or foe somewhat more viable than in the many games where such a foe will either be invincible or get whittled down slowly but surely in a sort of more mortal way.

For other details about Sorcerer there are numerous threads in the Adept Press forum that address these and similar issues.

By the way, there's a serious aspect of gamer-think that hurts understanding of lots of initiative systems, and which goes back to the quick guy vs. strong guy debate that's been around since the start of gaming. The reasoning is sort of like this:

1) In the imagined combat, things happen in a certain order.

2) Entities have a semi-definite speed of action that combines with the nature of their action and perhaps some random elements to determine when in this order they act.

3) 'Therefore', 'traditional' (though not brown book D&D as originally written down) initiative systems.

1 and 2 are actually probably basically OK for most imaginary material - we do normally imagine stuff happening in a certain order and some beings and actions as faster than others.

But the leap from 2 to 3 assumes that the action at the player level mirrors the action at the character level, which it needn't. With respect to Sorcerer, for example, I have absolutely no problem if "Lightning" Jones gets his action resolved after the snake's, even if he's like 30 times faster the way we're both imagining it. The imagination goes like this: Jones tries his whip or gun or kung fu or whatever, looking for a clear, safe shot, scurrying and darting around while the snake gazes balefully from left to right, but the thing's just so damn big he can't afford to take a crack at it without putting himself at risk. Cursing the thing's size, he watches it swivel around and he's got to do something now, does he jump out of the way or keep his shot?

I like a little abstraction in the combat system because it enables the group to paint cool mental pictures of what's going on for themselves. Others abhor it...maybe sometimes because they're obsessed with 'realism' in the mechanics, or maybe sometimes because they're quick guy fetishists, or because that's how all the 'good' games do it, or because this one time in junior high they got into a screaming fight with another player about who was going to attack the wizard first, or whatever.

I find though that some of the people who think they need this actually don't miss it when it's gone (the point of my OP).

Sorcerer is functional. It forces choices on players (defend or do something?).

I agree with other posted stuff.