Initiative - Important?

[misterecho]

So it's also a measure or a characters ability to predict his enemies actions?

[Jonathan Ridd]

If used as suspicion and awareness of an enemies motives and intended actions then yes it is essential and I use a Suss Roll or suspect roll to assess these things often against either the same characteristics to see who sees who first or against a deceive roll when an enemy is pretending to be nice just to do you in (happens a lot in Dog Town).

I also agree if there are separate resolution rolls then a method is needed to decide who attcks first.

As a result of this discussion I will probably look to bring in Suspect (stat used in Snuff for awareness, skepticism and intuition) a lot more in the set up stage to gain an advantage or disadvantage before combat begins.

[Chainsaw Aardvark]

“Time is what prevents everything from happening at once” -
John Archibald Wheeler (American physicist, b. 1911)

From a game-play perspective, we gain both a sense of organization and dramatic tension.

Just about any book or show about the wild west will point out that the scene of two gunslingers staring each other down and having a fast draw as high-noon is almost entirely fabrication. Yet many movies often have such a scene - because its exciting, and a lot easier to describe/display than the real chaos of a running gun battle. (Especially in an era before smokeless powder, though most movies are the 1880s or so.)

The same applies to the table-top. Sure, you can defeat the handful of kolbolds easily - but what if they go first and get in a lucky shot?

Two interesting examples come to mind in the Dominion Rules and the Mobsters RPG (from http://dominionrules.org/ and http://www.burgergames.com/ respectively).

Initiative has two parts in Dominion - declaration and resolution. The slowest actors need to announce their actions first, while the faster ones can react to the slower participants. Once everyone has laid out their plans, the events are resolved fastest to slowest.

By comparison, the Mobster game has a conventional highest roll goes first system - but also has a long list of recommendations for how to rub out opponents without invoking the full combat system (to fit the genre, and to lower risk, since combat is rather deadly.)

[Bryndon]

I use Dexterity to determine turn order in Superliga, which works on a declaration/resolution model as well. Some archetypes (the gunslinger and sneaky git leap to mind) loan themselves well to the concept of the improbably aware character, so these skill trees contain a skill that allows them to act as though they had a much higher dexterity, which alters their place in the turn order.

This gives the players a chance to save their hides in a given encounter by doing something improbably cool (switching to a different gun and firing it), or to ratchet up the threat posed by an opponent (a previously harmless opponent whips out a loaded pistol and fires it at a character).

[Thought]

Initiative can be useful for long, drawn out encounters, but I would argue that it should (almost) never be a significant factor at the start of it. There are generally three types of instances in which the order of action will need to be initiated. Only one of those instances actually calls for a classical initiative roll.

The first is when the Heroes are actively attempting to start a conflict which necessitates an action-order.

The second is when the heroes have been caught by surprise because their opponents actively attempted to start a conflict which necessitates an action-order.

And the third is when the two groups bump into each other (usually but not always surprising one another) and an action-order is required by default.

In the first and second instances, initiative should logically and dramatically go to the group who has intent. Take a minute and think about movies. How often is initiative random and how often does it conform to the intent of the character's? Did Han Shoot First because of random luck, some ethereal innate stat, or because he had the intent of killing the bounty hunter? Was Darth Vader able to stop Luke from attacking the Emperor because he won a roll or because that was his intention even before his son gave into his anger?

Dramatically, the third option is often boring. It can be interesting when two groups are hunting for each other and equally prepared, but that is rare. More often than not, the start of the action order is necessitated in this case because no one is acting, rather they are reacting. Reaction is dull; it isn't what being a hero is about.

... of course, you might notice that this is all based on the assumption that the game is about being a Big Damn Hero, kicking down doors, signing petitions for your fist, etc. Thematic games benefit from intent determining the top of the order, while gritty realistic games benefit from random dice or stats determining the top.

Just a,

Thought

[misterecho]

WOW!
What a first post! Welcome to 1km1kt

I agree whole heartedly with you. But it raises the point rob brought up in concern to someone who has a very high initiative, but never gets to use it!

[Chainsaw Aardvark]

Another game in my collection, suggests move logic shows that the out-numbered side acts first. Five protagonists against and army of mooks - they get a chance to shine. But when said team meats the single villain, they're in trouble. (Conservation of Ninjitsu at its finest.)

Or we could take this to the extreme of the players always go first. After-all, there the heroes. They should get a chance to thin enemy numbers or do something interesting before the opponents react. What fun is is if you have all these cool moves and powers to use, but get knocked out before you can show them off?

As usual, this is one of those mechanics highly dependent on what kind of story you want to tell. However, as a single rule to change, rather than say overhauling the whole combat system this presents an interesting case. You can have a deadly combat system, but whether or not the players have a high chance of acting first can can mitigate that risk somewhat - presenting a chance for cinematic showdowns rather than avoiding combat entirely. On the other hand, combat can be not very damaging, but having a very poor chance of getting in the first shot means players will realize that its a long term downwards spiral and will try to find other solutions.

[Rob Lang]

Thought - welcome to 1km1kt! Don't think you have to keep a high quality post for everything you write, tho!

I think initiative should nearly always be used. It's because of the game effect of the word, not the literal sense of it. Unless one group are ambushing another, initiative is a simple addition of complexity without adding more crunch. Furthermore, if you have a long drawn out combat and your character is the sort of character that has initiative, it will keep paying off because the character will be better at reacting to the things going on around them. It's not just about who goes first at the start of the combat. It should be a dividend that keeps paying. I think Thought agrees with that bit.

Speed of reaction to the enemy (which is what initiative really is) is far too a useful mechanic to be used only at the start of battle. By careful application in your combat system, you can give the players a chance to make rich decisions - rather than the obvious tactic choices that most of the D&D-esque combats I've witnessed rely upon. If you have an attribute that controls whether a character reacts well to the enemy then you should have a mechanic that supports it in lots of cases, rather than just sporadically at the start of combat.

[Thought]

[Jonathan Ridd]

Initiative is essential if your combat mechanic uses a turn by turn resolution broken down into individual rolls for attack and defence because someone has to attack first right. If however you take a broader more abstract perspective to combat where the fight isn't strictly defined by sequencial attack and defend actions then it becomes less important. Like Thought said initiative is mostly defined by intent, so the party that declares combat "I draw my and and fire" would have an edge in the resolution because he has initiated combat, however if both parties are expecting and desiring combat then this becomes moot because reactions/accuracy/composure are figured into the ability to gunfight and will manifest themselves in the outcome. The resolution can be described as a blazing firefight in which one party opens up first and the other responds, both simultaneously, or perhaps only one of the parties manages to get his rounds off. What determines the outcome speed, accuracy or calmness under fire - these factors define the ability, you can separate the but is there a need to?

I do draw a distinction between speed/reaction and awareness of the situation but all three could be amalgamated into one stat.

A bit or ramble that may or may not be at all clear.