One of the common elements of the role-playing game is breaking complicated sequences into turns. This is particularly evident in physical conflict, where turn order can easily mean life and death. This blog post is a breakdown of different initiative systems that I’ve seen.
Teams 1 then Team 2
Through some mechanism, usually dice, it is decided that one team goes first. At that point, everyone on the first team performs their individual actions. Once those actions are complete, the second team performs their individual actions.
I have never used this system, but the advantages are likely related to group size. The simplified turn order is easier for each player to handle their actions. Think about the old adventures that say for 9 to 12 players, it’s almost a defense mechanism for the poor GM.
Team 1 then Team 2 Stepping Through Phases
Similar to Team 1 then Team 2 initiative, but there are particular phases that might be resolved as demonstrated below.
- Team 1 fires arrows, team 2 fires arrows.
- Team 1 moves, team 2 moves.
- Team 1 throws weapons, team 2 throws weapons.
- Team 1 moves, team 2 moves.
- Team 1 attacks with sword, team 2 attacks with sword.
Optionally, you could have a step 0 where the team members declare their actions.
Individual - With Phases
Following on the idea of combat phases, except each character selects their actions. Rolemaster made use of this mechanism. Old School Hack is another one.
Individual - Round Reset
Each participant rolls initiative at the beginning of the round and then actions are taken in initiative order. A variant of this is where each player first declares their action, then initiative is rolled, and finally actions are resolved in initiative order (D&D 2E).
Individual - Circular Rounds
Each participant rolls initiative before combat begins, and for the duration of combat actions are performed in initiative order. D&D 3E and D&D 4E come to mind. There are rules for stepping out of the initiative order.
This system models the chaos of conflict. Once the first bullet fires, everything is a mix of instinct and reaction.
Burning Wheel’s mechanic breaks conflict scenes down into multiple exchanges. At the beginning of each exchange, the players can survey the current state of the conflict and then privately script their actions. Once the scripts are set, they are revealed and adjudicated.
Which means you may have wanted to swing at that guy with your sword, but he’s now inside your swing and poking you with a knife. You’re still going to swing, but you’ll have quite a few penalties.
Within this mechanism there is the savoring of laying out a plan and the tension of watching the events unfold. Very satisfying, and it does an excellent job of adding tension.
Diaspora’s space combat takes a very novel approach for space conflict. Each round is broken into phases for positioning, electronic warfare, beams, torpedos and damage control. Unlike other conflict systems, the first person to declare the action is the first to resolve their action.
There are advantages to going first (i.e. striking a deciding blow). There are advantages to going last (i.e. striking where they are already hurt).
To facilitate this system, a caller is required. They are the arbiter of when a particular phase is done.
Traditionally, most turn based conflict resolutions were focused on modeling physical combat. As role-playing games have evolved, for better or for worse, the idea of structuring social conflict resolution has been explored.
D. Vincent Baker’s Dogs in the Vineyard accepts that conflict can begin almost anywhere ( i.e. a barbed word, forceful push, stabbing knife, or pistol shot), and works to address that.
If you want to start a conflict, do it, and roll some dice. The defender rolls dice as well, and an exchange begins. First the attacker makes a point, followed by the defender, then the attacker. In many ways it is like the Individual - Circular Rounds method.
However, unlike other games I’ve read and played, Dogs in the Vineyard allows conflicts to seamlessly go from banter to pistols. Other systems may completely exclude social combat, and when someone says “I draw my gun”, the conflict resolution mechanism changes.
Another relatively new mechanic for me is the idea of removing the Game Master from the pool of people that participate in the conflict. This is the method of Apocalypse World and Dungeon World.
In both of these games, the action resolution mechanic incorporates the idea of Success, Partial Success, and Failure. Applied to conflict, a Success might mean I hit and damage my opponent and they don’t hit me. A Partial Success might mean that both my opponent and I hit and damage each other. A Failure might mean my opponent hits and damages me and I don’t hit them.
Order of when characters act is far less important, as the characters moves define their outcome.
Hollowpoint looks to who has the most of any numeral (i.e. 5 sixes were rolled) and they act knocking out other dice, then who has the next most of any numeral.
Reign Enchiridion, which I haven’t completed, looks to be somewhat similar to the Hollowpoint (though I assume Hollowpoint received inspiration from Reign).
What if the conflict resolution had a determination phase like Race for the Galaxy? In Race for the Galaxy everyone blindly chooses the actions that they will be taking that round. In taking the action, they get a bonus, but everyone else also may perform the action. So imagine sitting at the game table and choosing between: Move, Magic, Missile, Melee, and Defend.
This isn’t meant to be a comprehensive list, but instead highlights some of what I’ve seen. Personally, I’d love to see more mechanics akin to Dogs in the Vineyard where conflict seamlessly moves from one domain to another. I also believe Diaspora and other FATE-based games are onto something when they have a unified stress track.