D&D initiative system

I will never watch one of his videos no matter how many times you post his shit here.

Stop looking for views you little ass nugget.

It's not meant to be realistic. It's meant to enable relatively simple gameplay.

>>50718479
Watched like a minute of it.
>initiative should be based on experience
Okay, yeah, making your level involved in your initiative roll is a fine plan. Though as you level, you're likely fighting against relatively equal leveled foes so your bonuses cancel each other out, really. But still, yeah, including level is probably fine.

>some characters would just freeze, while more experienced characters would act!
Argument sort of lost me here. If the player character is so taken off guard by combat starting that they freeze, circumstances should have led to a surprise round anyway. What's the point?

File: We had this same thread yesterday.jpg (48KB, 396x382px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 396x382px

>>50718479
Well, last week, but I don't feel like making accurate picture for this shit yet again.

>>50718479
Lindybeige is literally autistic
Just ignore him

>>50718571
>What's the point?
Yet another clickbait video, of course!

>>50718571

4e did that. +1/2 level to init

>>50718605
Yeah and it was totally fair to add. Though wasn't 4e even more focused on equal leveled opponents, often rendering it a pointless bonus? It's been years since I have played 4e.

File: 1446592761673.png (161KB, 348x300px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 348x300px

>>50718479
Does he not realize that you don't 'wait' around, it's just a game mechanic that you're supposed to visualize happening at roughly the same time?

>>50718513
Why would Lindybeige post his videos here? He has hundreds of subscribers already.

Lindybeige got fired from his position as an instructor because he published an article stating how vegetarians should be force-fed lard.

Also he rejects data about climate change.

And most of his videos are him talking out of his ass with no citations.

>>50718479
Lloyd is an ignorant fool. We've established this before.

>>50718638
But it's not realistic, everyone should be playing at the same time just like in real life.

>>50718479
SPANDAU
P
A
N
D
A
U

>>50718713
I think you might be onto something. When those orcs jump out of the bushes, I'll give you and a few strongmen some blades and get you to fight. And if you want to seduce that barmaid because you're a Bard, then we'll all go to the bar and you have to pick up a girl as hot as how I described the NPC. Or at least as close as we can find.

>>50718658
>Also he rejects data about climate change.
Does he deny any possibility that human behaviour is at least partially responsible or does he just reject the doomsday predictions that change every couple years after they don't come true?

>>50718622

Eh you could go +/- 5 without too much trouble. The main thing was 'if they get too much lower than the PCs convert them to minions'

>>50718769
he denies it is happening at all

it is from one of his drunken rant videos from a few years back

>>50718658
>Lindybeige got fired from his position as an instructor because he published an article stating how vegetarians should be force-fed lard.
How does a dance instructor lose his job because of this?

People like him are probably the second worst group of players in this hobby

>"this isn't realistic, why would my half-pixie half-centaur barbarian warlock dragonborn just wait his turn before casting Endless Oath of Eternal Suffering at the Ultra Hydrademon Robot? Greg's 3/5ths Gelatinous Ooze 1/5th Angel 1/5th Dog Paladin Sorcerer Dragonhunter Inquisitor Tailor shouldn't be faster than me!"

File: 1479200893172.jpg (67KB, 540x509px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 540x509px

>>50718885
>1/5th Angel 1/5th Dog

>>50718833
He was a professor. Teaching dancing was part time.

>>50718571
You could make the point that BaB should be included in initiative, or in systems where there's no BaB a bonus for martial character as they're more battle-hardened.

Compared to wizard.

Would actually make a nice balance in pathfinder, in our HEAVILY MODDED campaign. Food for thoughts.

File: chapter 7 page 136.png (17KB, 292x181px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 292x181px

"They should use a system that makes more sense, like RuneQuest!"
>like RQ

File: tom03.jpg (141KB, 500x670px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 500x670px

I'll never really understand how D&D initiative devolved from its AD&D 2e state to what it has now.

In those days there were four simple steps:

1. The DM decides what the NPCs and foes are going to do in the round.
2. The players declare what each of their characters are going to do that round.
3. Both sides roll initiative, and modify on an individual basis if necessary
4. Then everything happens.

It was neat. See, all the weapons had certain speeds and spells had cast times that could modify when the action you declared took place. Faster weapons could more reliably strike spellcasters, for example, and spoil their magic. That was the thing about daggers, their speed was 2. Most spells were around 6 or 7. If you were up against a spellcaster you had a really good chance of getting your attack in before his spell was done. Popular weapons that did more damage were higher. Two handed swords were 10. That is, they added 10 to your initiative in a system where the lowest result gets adjudicated first. More usual weapons were 5-7 or so. You'd run the risk of taking a lot of magic to the face if you ignored the faster weapons instead of using them wisely. Throwing weapons were great for this, they were usually 2-4 in speed. 'I throw my axe at the wizard' was a good and sensible option for many an adventurer.

It might seem involved but players knew thier own equipment, and a party would come to know what they could do together in a round and would act very smoothly. I think the current way is actually slower and more clunky. 'You're first. What's your character doing? Okay roll. Here are the results. You're next. Okay roll. This happens,' etc.

It makes a huge difference because at the time your players were all taking their turn together and seeing the results play out while rolling when needed. The whole round would be described by the DM in an exciting summary then you'd get organised for the next round.

I miss it, lads.

>>50719491
My mistake, two handed swords were fifteen.
Plus fifteen on a d10! It would take serious effort, positioning and/or magic to not go last with you were a fan of the heavy blades.

>>50719525
>>50719491


That of course, carries its own ridiculousness though.

If you've got two fighters going at it, both relatively even in things like training and speed, and one's got a two handed sword, and the other guy's got some sort of arming sword and shield arrangement, chances are, it's the guy with the longer weapon who is going to have the first chance to get a strike in, not the guy with the smaller one.

>>50719835
... and that's ridiculous how?

>>50718479
OP, here is a clue.
If you want to have discussion, don't use that ugly, Sothern English mug as your image.

>>50718542
It also used to be a balance system between magic and martial.

File: 10173802_139022219601835_1800929158713687676_n_by_loboborges-d7wi5re.jpg (67KB, 697x960px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 697x960px

>>50719491
2nd ed did have a great system for initiative, and was teh first introduction of 'concentration' for spells.
it also seemed to be a bit more equipment based then our current systems.
everything but thaco man...

anyways mouse guards system is also a - declair your actions then GO !.

i like your post and i am now thinking of a homebrew for bring a system as such into 5th.

cause those systems sure do cut back on the metagaming

How the fuck is "rune quest" done then? The way he describes it, it's just imagination story time, with audience participation.

>>50719835
Aye there is an element of that, but it serves the romance of the 'huge sword' rather than the realism.

Also, modern D&D still has that problem (if it is a problem) in that the two handed sword won't confer a striking advantage over a smaller one. I don't really count it as an issue though.

>>50719835
No it's opposite problem. Two handed swords go last (highest initiative in a system where lower is better), when they should by all rights go first because they have longer reach. If speed is about who hits first, the reach is king, and the fastest weapons are the biggest ones, while the slowest are the smallest ones. The advantages of shorter weapons are mainly in how portable they are, with some specialized exceptions like maces and warhammers.

File: Hardness 100%.png (44KB, 324x361px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 324x361px

>>50719939
Is this Sheila?

File: Sheila.jpg (196KB, 1163x1600px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1163x1600px

>>50720092
You know it, daddy.

>>50719872
I though he was from northern England. Just listen to his accent.

>>50720273
He leaves in or near Newcastle, but he grew up in the South, like all civilised folk.

>>50720273
>>50719872

This. His accent is upper middle class northern british, he's probably from somewhere like sheffield or nottingham.

>>50718479

I like the way Ars Magica 5e does it. Weapons don't have speeds per se, instead they engage at a certain distance. If one fighter has a polearm and engages at "near" range, then a guy with a dagger can parry or dodge his attacks but can't make any attacks of his own until he manages to close to "reach" or "touch", which requires the equivalent of a successful attack roll. The polearm user then either fights at the new range (with a penalty for being too close) OR tries to "dodge" back out to the range his weapon suits. This results in a very dynamic combat, with fighters manoeuvring organically and mostly fighting defensively until they get into a perfect position and strike decisively.

>>50719858


Because the system presented gives you the opposite; that the guy with the smaller weapon, all things being equal, is more likely to get the first shot in.


>>50720064


That's what I was saying, I'm sorry if it wasn't clear; that the guy with the longer weapon should be able to hit first most of the time, and the system produces the opposite effect.

>>50718479

He's right, but for the wrong reasons

Savage Worlds initative is superior in every way.

File: Cc3JyfjUMAEaSYO.jpg (41KB, 600x480px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x480px

>>50718769
>Does he deny any possibility that human behaviour is at least partially responsible or does he just reject the doomsday predictions
Honestly, the second one is almost worse imo.
If you don't think climate change is happening/don't think humans are causing it, fine, it makes sense to continue on our current path
If you think climate change is happening and caused by humans, then you pretty much HAVE to admit it's cause for concern, and that we should try to do something about it
Ignoring specific predictions for a moment: Literally every sudden, major climatic shift in the geologic record has been correlated with major die offs (not necessarily mass extinctions). This is something that we know is a huge problem, regardless of the specific current circumstances. If you think the climate is shifting, you should be very afraid.

>>50718479
Hey, leave lindybeige alone alright? He seems like a nice enough history teacher and makes plenty of good points.

>>50720847
>He seems like a nice enough history teacher
apparently not, thread tells me he got canned
>plenty of good points
apparently not, no one can seem to name any

>>50720871
While I wouldn't be one to judge a person's character based off the anonymous opinions of the delicately autistic chimps on tg I will admit I've never watched any of his tabletop game videos, which must surely be mostly opinion too.

I like his history myth debunking ones or when he takes the piss out of bad historical movies.

File: 1481251599795.png (261KB, 861x721px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 861x721px

>>50719491
as a young person who grew up in a small village and did not play any roleplayin games until recent years this sounds very straight forward and just plain fun

File: zpage362.gif (700KB, 1113x739px) Image search: [Google]

700KB, 1113x739px

>>50719835
>>50720064

Could one way to solve this be to reattribute the 'speed' number to 'reach'?

For my home brew we were trying to figure out how to do simultaneous combat and a friend suggested that there be 3 reaches, short, medium, and long, then a 4th that would be ranged. Short is fists and daggers, medium for arming swords, axes, etc. and long for spears or other longer two-handed weapons. Ranged is anything farther than long that is a projectile. Those numbers might not be spot on, but you get the idea.

We figured it would make formation fighting and spears actually useful if you could stop someone from closing distance, or even stack a spearman behind ol' sword and board for a double attack when enemies close range.

It hasn't made it past that point for lack of playing around with the idea, so we haven't figured out much beyond if you are at the right reach for your weapon and not for the other guy, you go first.

We never figured out when spells go off in relation, and when the missile weapons hit.

>Wah why doesn't my dumb dungeon pillaging simulator account for the nuanced advantages of reach in a melee situation

Just play Burning Wheel you simulationist fucks

>>50721578
I was looking for >>50720584

>>50720681
Explain savage worlds initiative system to one (me) that doesnt have the pdf at hand and has never tried the system.

>>50718605
He'd probably like 4e more than any other style. The dude is all about war board game style stuff and 4e was focused on that.

>>50719491
In 1e, weapons always struck casters before their magic went off regardless of initiative and longer weapons always got first strike regardless of initiative. Also, trying to leave an engagement also made martials strike first against those trying to leave

>>50721612
I'm honestly not sure what he's talking about. From what I remember, it's basically D&D initiative with cards. The only difference is that you may get some special effects when drawing certain cards (drawing an Ace gives you massive bonuses for the turn IIRC).

File: Al.png (668KB, 1094x854px) Image search: [Google]

668KB, 1094x854px

>Enemy is 60ft away
>Higher initiative
>Charges a bow and arrow user before he can even do anything

>>50719835
That's one of the things I really like about the RuneQuest system. It takes both the speed and length of the weapon, as well as your character's reach, in consideration when it comes to determining who strikes first.

>>50721892
"Wait, what is going on? Oh shit, that guy is charging me, better loose an arrow! Damn, it missed, better pull back another and CRAP SHIT HE'S RIGHT NEXT TO ME! Ok, calm down, shoot another one and fuckshitdamn it graced his armor, I need draw another on-"

See the charging guy was ready while the archer was caught off guard and was fumbling with the arrows. During that 6 seconds the characters don't just fucking stand in place like a JRPG character.

>>50721892
Maybe your bowman should have had a bit of initiative and been ready to shoot before he got charged, eh?

>>50718479
That fucking video about pikes made me never take a damn thing he says seriously.

>>50722874
What did you he say to make you think that?

>>50720526
Sorry, he's from Sussex and moved up north during his uni years

>>50719027

What cunt picked that font

Please familiarize yourself with GR11.

File: Speed-Factors-Initiative.jpg (278KB, 985x1331px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 985x1331px

>>50719491
What you are looking for is speed factor initiative, a variant rule in the 5e DMG

>>50725043
Noice.

>>50721578
>We figured it would make formation fighting and spears actually useful if you could stop someone from closing distance, or even stack a spearman behind ol' sword and board for a double attack when enemies close range.

No what you do is you stack your spearmen so that your enemies have to go through two or three ranks of spear points before they can even attack your front rank. This is how both the ancient phalanx and the renaissance pike blocks worked. In the case of the Macedonian phalanx, the long sarissa actually allowed them to present five ranks of spears before the enemy, with trade-off that their phalanxes were a lot less manoeuvrable and more vulnerable to flanking.

>>50725350

>Macedonian phalanx
>Less maneuverable than earlier greek phalanxes

Do you have any idea what the fuck you're talking about?

>>50720251

Tits are too big.

>>50718479
I have yet to need any kind of rolled initiative, because I am a good GM who knows how to give everyone time to shine, and my players are all cool people who don't try to hog the spotlight.

Not that rolled initiative has ever solved spotlight hogging, or that I could not, as the GM, solve any similar problem without it.

>>50725533
Why not just straightup say "I'm better than you" ?

>>50725461
Not him, but he's right.
Phalanx was bad at maeuvering. And all Macedonians did was double the size of them, quadrupling the problem due to the square-cube law.
Shit wasn't that obvious, but the moment all the successor kingdoms started facing non-phalanx formations, they were out-maneuvered by pretty much everyone and their dog.

File: shitpost.jpg (31KB, 396x382px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 396x382px

>>50718479
Pic related and we've come to the conclusion many times that he has a shit DM.

>>50725589
>Not him, but he's right.


No, he's incredibly wrong. Macedonian phalanxes had capabilities like "Turning around" and "breaking up into several groups", which Greek phalanxes did not.

>Phalanx was bad at maeuvering.

Yes, in comparison to lighter troops.

>. And all Macedonians did was double the size of them, quadrupling the problem due to the square-cube law.

Retard. There was no standard size of a Greek phalanx, which was part of the problem. A Macedonian phalanx was a 256 man discrete unit, and you'd arrange them, block by block, to form your line. Each formation could and did maneuver independently.

Greek phalanxes, on the other hand was 'Everyone who was fucking there from this city', and when you did have multiple cities acting in league, you had multiple phalanxes on the battlefield, some being a few hundred men, others being 10,000+ men, and all attempting to turn with all their buddies, and almost always universally failing.


And that's not even going into the fact that the Macedonians fielded professional armies, whereas the bulk of Greek phalanxes (although not all, the Spartans ring to mind, as do a number of later professional mercenary forces) were citizens militia, with limited training in something as complex as maneuvering in body.

>Shit wasn't that obvious, but the moment all the successor kingdoms started facing non-phalanx formations, they were out-maneuvered by pretty much everyone and their dog.

No, they didn't start getting outmaneuvered until the Romans showed up. Facing native revolts, smaller kingdoms at the borders of their empires, they were not getting outmaneuvered; if anything, they winded up exporting the phalanx system to other peoples.

>>50725971
>Calling people names will help my cause, while I'm trying to pretend unit infamously bad at maeuvering wasn't bad
>It's just all a coincidence it was routed, flanked and out-maeuvered on every given chance by non-phalanx armies

>>50726449

>Calling people names will help my cause, while I'm trying to pretend unit infamously bad at maeuvering wasn't bad


I'm calling you names because you're

A) Wrong

B) Mis-stating the entire premise of the statement, namely a comparison between Macedonian and Greek phalanxes, not between Macedonian phalanxes and other units.

C) You very clearly are sticking to your guns on the basis of nothing.


To be clear, since I don't think you're very bright. I am not saying that the Macedonian phalanx was a particularly nimble sort of formation. I am saying, however, that they were significantly more so than the earlier Greek phalanxes, longer spears nonwithstanding, in opposition of the statement of post>>50725350


>It's just all a coincidence it was routed, flanked and out-maeuvered on every given chance by non-phalanx armies

Yeah? When did this happen before running into the Romans? When did the Persian light infantry and cavalry armies outmaneuver the Macedonian phalanxes? When did the Nubians get the upper hand on Ptolemaic Egypt? When did the Thracians outmaneuver the Antigonids? Why did the Mauryans give the Selucids 500 war elephants as part of a peace deal?

Why/how is he a shit GM?

I thought a combat round in dnd happened near simultaniously and the initiative order was mainly for organization and effect spells

>>50721612
Everyone draws cards from the same deck, some players have abilities that let them draw more than one card, they use the highest. s

Jokers give bonuses but cause the deck to be reshuffled. Aces high, down from there.

Players can hold their turn off, and try to interrupt (opposed agility roll) anyone who goes after them. If they have a joker, they automatically succeed.

>>50726900
You would be correct.

>>50726715
>Yeah? When did this happen before running into the Romans? When did the Persian light infantry and cavalry armies outmaneuver the Macedonian phalanxes? When did the Nubians get the upper hand on Ptolemaic Egypt? When did the Thracians outmaneuver the Antigonids? Why did the Mauryans give the Selucids 500 war elephants as part of a peace deal?

What a fucking pillock. The Macedonians and the Successor States weren't outmanoeuvred by all those you mentioned because of the manoeuvrability of the phalanx but because they also had good skirmishers and heavy cavalry to protect their flanks.

>>50725043
What page is this on?

>>50722451
>Damn, it missed
>shoot another one and fuckshitdamn it graced his armor
Except that doesn't happen because the guy doesn't even get to fire his bow, that's the whole complaint.

File: Goalposts.jpg (24KB, 256x202px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 256x202px

>>50727326

>>50726449

>>It's just all a coincidence it was routed, flanked and out-maeuvered on every given chance by non-phalanx armies

Show me some examples, anon.

>>50725043
>>50727339
Nevermind, found it. Page 271 in case anybody else was wondering.

File: IMG_1593.jpg (131KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1920x1080px

What's /tg/'s opinion of Lindybeige? /his/ seems to hate him outright.

File: 1458432184613.png (77KB, 360x475px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 360x475px

>>50725043
Once again 5e fixes what 3.5 broke.

>>50727398
I liked all 3 videos I watched. He didn't say any stupid shit in them, but he acted like he was about to.

>>50725043
>Subtract Spell Level
But muh super quick Power Word Kill

>>50727398
He's an idiot who takes the shit that random strangers in pubs say as gospel.

Literally. In his scimitar video, he concludes that medieval warriors fought with the weapon a certain way based solely on what a friend of a friend said. He didn't bother looking up any training manuals for the weapons, or any historical records of battles in which scimitars were used.

No, he took a third-hand account of an event that happened decades ago, and instead of using it as an interesting jumping-off point for more thorough research, he just presented it as absolute truth.

He's an idiot, and not a trustworthy source of historical facts.

>>50727353
I do't know what the fuck you mean, I'm not the same anon

>>50727398
>/his/ seems to hate him outright.
They have threads about him every single day that get a lot of replies so I wouldn't say they hate him

>>50727773
>t.frog
That video was from years ago when there wasn't that much information available so it's understandable. Yes even today he says a lot of bullshit but he never claimed to be an expert. The only reason people think what he says he considers it as undeniable fact is because of his British voice and his choice of clothing. They see a wacky British professor when he never claimed to be one and he says a lot of the times in his videos that these are just his theories. And also from time to time he makes really good ones that actual experts like Matt Easton agree with.

>>50727914
>They have threads about him every single day that get a lot of replies so I wouldn't say they hate him

That's not really a good indicator of whether they like him or not.

>>50727914
Well, so how are you supposed to know which of his videos are worthless and which ones are useful?

I used to like him a lot for a few of his videos that turned out to be wrong, so now I'm wary of watching his videos in the first place now. Which is a shame, because a few of them were pretty entertaining.

>>50728043
>Well, so how are you supposed to know which of his videos are worthless and which ones are useful?
Very simple guide
>Direct demonstration video
Roughtly 10% of it is shit, like the torch series or demonstration of crossbow mechanism
>Visits in museum
Roughtly 25% of it is shit made on the fly to fit in narrative
>Standing in his flat and talking about any given subject
It's 60% or higher shit content
>It involves Brits or uses Brits or Brit related stuff as the point of reference
It's 95% crap

>>50728134
>Roughtly 10% of it is shit, like the torch series
Wait, are you serious? I thought that video was legit. Wasn't the general gist of it that "it's hard to see if you hold the torch in front of your face"? Or are you using that as an example of what wasn't shit?

>>50718656
HUNDREDS WOW THATS SO MANY

AMAZING

>>50728193
>torch series
>series
Have you watch the last, 4th part, when he started sperging around again?

>>50728248
it's actually 345 000
no idea why that anon wrote hundreds

File: 1454771841016s.jpg (7KB, 250x194px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x194px

>>50727572
>my main group refuses to play 5e
>just 3.5 with high power campaigns.
>gm bitches every time one of my rogue uses one of her class abilities like evasion or uncanny dodge because they aren't realistic.

>>50728505
>Run 3.X
>Complain about lack of realism
Kill your GM. It's too late for other solutions

>>50728505
>realism
>for a class expressly designed to emulate supernatural sneaks from myth and fiction
>for 3.5 at all

While I do agree that other games do it better, no one cares about this e-celeb bullshit.

>>50728505
>because they aren't realistic.
Which is an odd complaint.
Thief abilities were supernatural in BASIC/AD&D

>>50728479
There is no way 345k people know who you are or care about your stupid rants about RPGs. The number is clearly inflated by paid follower farms.

Also stop shitting up /tg/ with your videos.

>>50721631
He actually hates 4e. He has a video on it. Part 2 of D&D.

Don't watch it. He hates that all actions in the entire game are 'limited to powers'. He tried to do a cool thing, and his DM told him no because it wasn't a power that he had. He also prefaces this with saying the DM really, really didn't like and want to play 4e. The whole thing is just embarrassing all around.

>>50729187
This. Lloyd is cancer and the sooner he stops shilling his channel here the better.

>>50728505
>Uncanny dodge
>that doesn't seem realistic
Well no shit, it's uncanny.

>>50728043
It helps if you consider what he says the ramblings of an autistic britbong.
Seriously though most people watch him because he's entertaining. Even in videos where he spews total bullshit he can still be quite funny. And all that "Brits are the best at everything while the french smell" is part of the humour. Watch him mostly for entertainment and consider what he says with a grain of salt.

>>50718479
Initiative is to balance actions and create structure to a turn.

The market for D&D products is supposed to be 12-20 year olds. Let it go older folk, the kids are playing and need a bit more structure than your perfect AD&D cluster shit.

What would.. What would the ALTERNATIVE to initative even be?

Whoever says their next action the fastest gets to do it, giving the wizard a Firebolt every time he can say the word and roll 1d20.

>>50729187
>backpedalling this hard

>>50731604
>What would.. What would the ALTERNATIVE to initative even be?

Sword Path glory has this.
Turns are 1/12 of a second.
On a turn you can do nothing, "wait" or act.
Actions cost X turns based on your skill and stats.
You tell you will do some action and after X turns you do it.

Game has no initiative system.

>>50719939
>everything but thaco man...
Oh quit your memein'
THAC0 is just basic subtraction. You learned it in fucking kindergarten.

>>50731604
hackmaster has a "rolling count" of sorts where an action costs X number of seconds to perform and you tick up a global count incrementally. At any time you can stop what you're currently doing and start a new action.

there's still "initiative" at the start of the round though but it doesn't have a role outside of determining your initial wait time.

>>50731440
The initiative system is actually way more clunky and disorganized than the way AD&D did it.

Basically, in AD&D, you rolled initiative after everyone described their action and actions resolved from the lowest score to the highest. Certain actions altered initiative in some way, which also made spells and the weapons you chose matter in the long run. Then the GM described how each action resolved in order, which made the combat dynamic because certain actions could resolve before others and even make it so that other actions never happened.

Nowadays though, you roll initiative, you go from highest to lowest, each person describes an action that either does something or does nothing, and once everyone has had their turn, it goes again from highest to lowest until one side is unable to battle. It's less dynamic because the outcome is binary and the combat feels so clunky because nothing you do has any real meaning beyond either dealing damage or ending combat via SoL/SoD

>>50727351
Guy's being a tard though. The archer has the better initiative score, and he's making up shit.

>>50731355
t. britbong

There is nothing funny in his rabid, barely contained nationalism sperging

>>50731732
>1/12ths of a second
Nigga

>>50725043
I like that they did that. Its very much like the 2e version.
Now if only we could re-establish everyone declaring their actions then rolling initiative we'd have something. Do they have that variant rule too?

>>50734268
>There is nothing funny in his rabid, barely contained nationalism sperging
I actually find it hilarious when he goes on rants about how the British are superior at everything and so forth.

>>50734513
You could very easily homebrew it.

>>50718479
You pause the game and perform your 100% calculated turn without any interruptions most of the time (not counting AOO, there aren't that many things that can interrupt you). THIS is his gripe and he is right.

If you had less rules for every little thing and just decided "I will rush forward and attack the goblins in melee" instead of "I move to this tile and now I perform my attack - rolls - and now I use this feat that allows me to perform a free trip - rolls - and now that I know I tripped him, I move to this tile and finally end my turn".

Splitting initiative into two segments makes it much more exciting. If you first collectively decide what to do, and then everything happens, there won't be players that want to grab a phone when it's not their turn, because there is literally nothing to do.

>>50734659
Yeah. You'd still be stuck with the rest of 5e though, so I'll just keep to my favourite versions of the game. No harm done.

House rules are a bit thorny sometimes becasue everyone has to be on board with it. If its part of the game by default then everyone at the table knows what to expect because that's what they can find in their own books. Oh well, you take the good with the bad and just try to have a good game. All is well.

The videos 2 fucking years old
That idiot tried to argue about immigration in Europe before removing the video.
Why are you even subscribed to him
asshole

>>50737188
>That idiot tried to argue about immigration in Europe before removing the video.
But the video is still up.

He should really try out Twilight 2013's initiative system.

>>50737433
what video?

>>50737433

he made like 5 you retard

>>50718479
Ok, well, the system is unrealistic, because in reality, things happen simultaneously. However, having played a couple games that try to emulate that, like Burning Wheel and Scion, it works even worse.

It is also slow, mostly because of the act of rolling and charting initiative, especially with games or GMs who want to do it every round. Unless you have an automated system for it, like on Roll20, it eats up a lot of time.

I have ultimately given up on initiative. Now I just use a round the table method. It's not perfect, either, but it does save a lot of time.

>>50738536
What if someone has a character that they specifically made to have faster reaction times? Cyberpunk 2020 comes to mind, with its initiative boosting cyberware.

>>50727914
>They have threads about him every single day that get a lot of replies so I wouldn't say they hate him

/v/ has threads about e-celebs that get a lot of replies, does that mean /v/ like e-celebs ?

Though so.

>>50738721
You have him sit in the ideal spot?

>>50739016
>"No David, my character has the higher speed so I'M the one who sits next to the GM!"
>"My Speed is just as high as yours is fuckboy, if anything, you should sit next to me!"
>"What about me, I brought the chips and the cola this week so I should sit next to the GM!"
>Cue 30-60 minutes of arguments over seating arrangement
>Y'know what, fuck you people, I'm going home!"
>"Same!"
>"Ditto!"
>Game ends less than 2 hrs. in before anyone even started playing

It's easier just to roll initiative familia. And before you say "well that'll never happen," let me just say that you've never had to deal with a power gamer whose desire to win superseded the goodwill of the group.

Players are like children, if you don't establish what and what not to do, the game will come to a halt once the 'tism sets in.

>>50739876
>drinking cola
>playing with people who are not already friends
you made two big mistakes with your example my friend

>>50741692
You say that as if friends can't be total faggots sometimes during game.

>>50741714
Yes, I do, because if your friends are acting like total faggots during the game then you've got bigger problems than the initiative system you're using, i.e., that your friends are acting like total faggots during the game.

Saying that people could be total faggots about a rule isn't even really a good argument against it in the first place, you know. People can be faggots independent of ANY rule.
>"What the fuck, the wizard can hit people with his staff but I can't hit shit with my sword? When I've got like 18 strength and he's got 9?!"
>"Jesus shit Steve, calm the fuck down, it's just RNG..."
>"Fuck you, Todd, you just think wizards should be able to do anything!"
>"Fuck you, Steve, I slept with your wife!"
>Game ends in a fistfight, ergo strength giving to-hit bonuses is a flawed rule
It just doesn't follow in the first place.

File: plown.jpg (46KB, 461x501px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 461x501px

>>50741802

>>50741802
It does when it turns what should be a non-issue into a major one simply because you personally don't feel as though the initiative system is flawed.

People sitting at the table can accept that sometimes, RNG is fair and sometimes it's dogshit. Sometimes you go first and sometimes you go last, it's random sure but it also doesn't favor one party over the other unless they went out of their way to stack initiative bonuses, but at that point it's them using the game to their advantage at the cost of something else.

Using seat order however just changes the group dynamic, because now the advantage goes to whoever just so happens to sit next to the GM's dominant hand that day. Since going first is such a major boon in most RPGs, the person who wants to squeeze out the most bonuses is going to be hovering around that seat like his life depended on it.

Then you have a group with this mentality and suddenly it turns into a big deal when normally a roll would've sufficed.

>>50741922
You're clearly confused about the origin of the claimed problem, though.
>Then you have a group with this mentality and suddenly it turns into a big deal when normally a roll would've sufficed.
"The means of determining initiative" doesn't matter at all to your objection. "This mentality" does, and the fact remains (as I pointed out) that if "this mentality" can count as an objection to the game mechanic, then conceivably any game mechanic is flawed. Claiming that this needlessly promotes this mentality is also flawed, because my earlier example gave an example using a modified d20 to-hit roll: if your claim is that "seating order" initiative promotes a garrulous attitude towards your fellow players, in order to be logically consistent you must acknowledge that the core mechanic of D&D is also capable of doing so.

It's true that, assuming this system can only work identically to musical chairs, people could wind up "hovering" next to the GM before the game starts, which sounds like more of a nuisance than an actual problem. (For a certain minded GM, I'm not certain they would want to discourage this: it could incentivize players to show up early.) But that assumes something that wasn't stated about the system -- specifically, that the seating order was not randomly distributed, for example by a single initiative roll that happened at the beginning of the session that could even take normal character-based bonuses into accountt.

I'm certainly not about to adopt it myself: I also dislike initiative systems and how unnatural they feel re: combat that ought to be unpredictable and chaotic. I feel like this system makes it even worse because you know which PC is going to act first before combat begins, as opposed to just knowing the probability. But your argument as given is a poor rebuttal.

>>50742299
>(For a certain minded GM, I'm not certain they would want to discourage this: it could incentivize players to show up early.) But that assumes something that wasn't stated about the system -- specifically, that the seating order was not randomly distributed, for example by a single initiative roll that happened at the beginning of the session that could even take normal character-based bonuses into accountt.
But then why not just roll to resolve initiative order as normal instead of having seating order be taken into account?

Nobody is going to feel like getting up and rearranging their shit every single time they decide to participate in combat and doing that will just waste more time and energy in the long run while sucking you out of the game even more than initiative order.

And the faggot who shows up early just to hover over the seat is the same sort of person who only shows up just to show off how bullshit his character is.

No thanks.

>>50742391
>But then why not just roll to resolve initiative order as normal instead of having seating order be taken into account?
Because, as has been public information this entire time from the first guy who posted it, "it saves time." Which it would: one initiative roll versus several.

>Nobody is going to feel like getting up and rearranging their shit every single time they decide to participate in combat and doing that will just waste more time and energy in the long run while sucking you out of the game even more than initiative order.
You've misread my post. I suggested "for example by a single initiative roll that happened at the beginning OF THE SESSION." One session potentially includes several combats: the roll happens before seating is determined, and once seating is determined it does not change until the end of the session. Do you understand what I mean now?

>And the faggot who shows up early just to hover over the seat is the same sort of person who only shows up just to show off how bullshit his character is.
I've said it three times now; if you're playing with people you don't like, that's your problem, not the game mechanic in question's.

>>50720728
Their logic usually boils down to the fact that they'll be dead before it affects their life so fuck everyone else

>>50742504
>Because, as has been public information this entire time from the first guy who posted it, "it saves time." Which it would: one initiative roll versus several.
Yet having to gather one's belongings and migrate to a new seat depending on one's initiative roll wouldn't take more time than just rolling normally?
>You've misread my post. I suggested "for example by a single initiative roll that happened at the beginning OF THE SESSION." One session potentially includes several combats: the roll happens before seating is determined, and once seating is determined it does not change until the end of the session. Do you understand what I mean now?
Oh, then the guy who rolled shit gets the honor of never getting to act for the entire session unless everyone fucks up?

I mean, I guess it works if you're there to play WoW on your laptop.
>if you're playing with people you don't like, that's your problem
No, it's the game's problem for encouraging this behavior in the first place.

>>50742573
>Yet having to gather one's belongings and migrate to a new seat depending on one's initiative roll wouldn't take more time than just rolling normally?
I mean, if your players like to carry around a backpack from seat to seat, I suppose so. But it's a "pencil and paper" game. It's not exactly a trek.
>Oh, then the guy who rolled shit gets the honor of never getting to act for the entire session unless everyone fucks up?
I... what?
I have no idea what you're talking about anymore. Do you even play D&D? Combats last more than one round just about every time. Combats that are absurdly short combats take at least three rounds, maybe two. What kind of games are you playing where combat doesn't even last a single round? I'm sincerely baffled by this point. Have you ever played a game using this system in your life?

>No, it's the game's problem for encouraging this behavior in the first place.
I already pointed out that if your argument is considered sound, you would also have to consider it to apply to the core mechanic. Do you agree that the core mechanic of D&D "encourages this behavior"? If so, why do you play D&D? (I am not convinced that you do.)

>>50742660
>Have you ever played a game using this system in your life?
A point of clarification: by "this system," I am referring to D&D as a whole, not the suggested seating order initiative system.

>>50718479
Does anyone still listen to this guy?
>Ochs wasn't a useful guard despite being referenced in every period fencing manual, and its only potential value is because zwerchau (aka "the helicopter attack") lets you parry without looking where your opponent is actually striking from
Jesus Christ, how does this guy continue to post videos of ridiculous bullshit that's demonstrably false without ever getting called out? Why do people continue to watch his videos?

>>50742660
>>50742666
I've been in a game where I didn't even touch my dice once because I rolled absolute garbage initiative the entire night and the power gamers in the group nuked the threat before it even reached my turn.

Rolling low initiative in a group where everyone is optimized basically means that you're never going to do anything marginal for that day unless everyone fucks up their turn long enough for it to reach your turn.

Having this be your fate for the entire night, I'd probably just play WoW until the session is over due to all the nothing I'm going to be doing for that night anyways.

>>50742779
Sounds like your DM should have been giving your group credible threats instead of wasting time with a bunch of mooks.

>>50742808
There was a time when we fought against a Xenomorph and the power gamers just nuked it on their turns simply because their damage output was higher than the creature's HP total.

It's hard to throw "credible threats" at players because the game is too swingey to have much in the way of consistency.

And I say this as someone who saw a level 7 Monk almost get killed because he rolled two 1's in trying to dropkick an Orc from behind.

File: story23b.gif (11KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 600x450px

>>50742779
>>50742869
>incompetent DM
>pitting his munchkin players
>against a Xenomorph
I'm just going to say this again because all those other times had conditions to them, like, "if your players are all powergaming douchebags" and "if your GM is utterly incompetent."

Your game is terrible, and it's not the mechanics fault. Anon's houserule has nothing to do with it. I'm sorry you had to deal with this.

>>50742758
Because he's charismatic and entertaining.

So what do you guys think is the best way to do initiave in general?

>>50718479
>Is he seriously not able to wait six seconds for his turn because it's not realistic enough and boring?
Do you SERIOUSLY think that the average turn in ANY game takes six seconds?

>>50718479
>Realistic
>Fucking Magic, Dragons, and not instantly bleeding to death and dying after being stabbed once

Fantasy isn't realistic by nature, and Dungeons and Dragons is like LotR; you're not concerned with the unrealistic feats they can do in that universe.

>>50743437
>not instantly bleeding to death and dying after being stabbed once

Is this supposed to be realistic? Considering over all body surface area most places can be wounded pretty badly without it being fatal.

>>50742926
I'm sorry I had to deal with this bullshit too, it's why I'm generally harsh and jaded when it comes to ttRPGs nowadays.

With that being said, the other anon's proposal will only produce more problems than solutions simply because people, when given a choice, will choose to break their own arm to get a marginal advantage over the given situation.

So it's why I tend to just let shit come down to RNG, it sucks to have swingy results determining your success more often than not but at least it causes less butthurt than accusations of favortism and collusion.

>>50744724
>people, when given a choice, will choose to break their own arm to get a marginal advantage over the given situation.
I dispute the claim. You're basing it off experience with a specific kind of people who act like that, but you don't have anything that shows it as a universal precept.

Anon's proposal wouldn't solve your problem because your problem has to do with forces that are already much more fundamental than game mechanics in the first place. It's not going to "produce problems" any more than the core mechanics of the RAW game did for you and your group.

>>50744939
>You're basing it off experience with a specific kind of people who act like that, but you don't have anything that shows it as a universal precept.
Human beings, by their very nature, are evil, spiteful little cretins who would rather die than admit that they were wrong. History is full of instances where one group of people ruined themselves in the long run just to make sure that their enemies suffered in the short term, it's who we are. You can pretend otherwise but that's just a straight fact, even if the context is centered on the tabletop gaming community.
>It's not going to "produce problems" any more than the core mechanics of the RAW game did for you and your group.
It will because it just adds another element to be gamed and exploited at the cost of the group's overall cohesion. And all so you don't have to roll initiative like an ordinary person, when its been proven to work for most games on the market.

>>50718479
>It's a "X is not Realistic" episode

>>50745045
And this is the conclusion of the argument, because you've admitted something I've been saying for some time now: this has nothing to do with D&D. Your claim that this game mechanic creates problems is entirely dependent on your cynical view of humanity, not on any actual critique of the house rule from a game-design standpoint, vindicating my claim earlier that your claim also applies to the central mechanic of D&D. Your argument that Anon's initiative system "adds another element to be exploited" is an argument against TRPG rules in general, not just Anon's, and logically extends to the initial concept of having game mechanics in the first place, just as I said before: therefore as a critique of Anon's rule it doesn't work.

>And all so you don't have to roll initiative like an ordinary person, when its been proven to work for most games on the market.
Actually, I'll counter that claim that it "works for most games on the market." I don't want to give his name, but I once met a fellow who had a terrible time with how initiative worked in his game. Here's what he had to say on the subject:
>I've been in a game where I didn't even touch my dice once because I rolled absolute garbage initiative the entire night and the power gamers in the group nuked the threat before it even reached my turn.
This only further proves that you don't have anything in particular against Anon's idea that is not also applicable to game mechanics in general.

If human nature is like you say it is, there's no reason to complain about individual aspects of individual games, because said games would only exist in order to one-up each other and it doesn't matter if you roll initiative or determine it via seating arrangement because either method is only going to cause more bitching. Your argument has nothing to do with game mechanics. You're a film critic who doesn't watch movies: nobody should give a shit about what you have to say.

>>50745920
So because I disagree with your flawed premise, it means that I'm beneath your notice and aren't worth your time anymore?

I get enough liberal nonsense on from /pol/acks, so if you're not interested in discussing matters openly then all I have to do now is give you a (You) and bid you adieu.

Have a nice life, and Merry Christmas.

>>50718479
B/X group initiative by phases is the best method tbqh

>>50746061
>So because I disagree with your flawed premise, it means that I'm beneath your notice and aren't worth your time anymore?
I don't understand what you mean by my "flawed premise," because this is the first time in the discussion you've mentioned one. In any case this only means that this ought to be a discussion on traditional games on the traditional games board, not a refutation of a personal philosophy that only deals with traditional games indirectly. I thought I had made that clear. If this were the history and humanities board, or maybe even a politics board, I probably would try and argue against your personal philosophy, which I personally disagree with: it's not, though, so my inference is that this argument would be doubly unwelcome, if not also to you then to the other residents of this board.

I don't know how you can be "merry" when you think that everyone's out to get everyone else, but I do hope yours is a Merry Christmas all the same.

>>50746070
How does that work? Haven't played it

>>50746070
What does "B/X" mean? Isn't that like really basic D&D?

>>50719027
Honestly, while the pic is torn out of context, when you read the rules in RQ it is actually pretty comprehensible. All it says is "quick dudes act early and more often, while slow ones act later and less often". It's pretty nifty over all.

File: image.jpg (16KB, 265x265px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 265x265px

>>50738536
>>50721578
One Roll Engine has a pretty good approximation of simultaneous combat.

You declare your action in order of lease to most cunning (actual stat) and then roll a dice pool of D10s.

You then make a sort of poker hand by matching sets in the result to work out who went first and how to interfere with each other.

It takes awhile to get used to but it does you have a sense of everyone's going at one.

>>50718622
pretty much, the exact same way that the continuous boosts to defenses and damage felt pointless, since they were all against opponents with steadily rising accuracy, damage and hit points.

Honestly, if we had gotten stronger but enemies stayed the same, that would have been... awesome.

But again, my GM's fault, he criminally underused minions, or used minions with excessive defenses meaning that the minions would survive just as long as the main threat, but through whiffed attacks instead of hit point endurance... hell, with the increased damage of the minions, often they were a greater threat than the actual monster.

4e strikes me as perfectly balanced, but terribly implemented by so many.

File: 1479812785189.jpg (174KB, 1023x723px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1023x723px

>>50748003
well im sure every one on /tg/ has all very non standard western fantasy some where lying around, on a more serious note read lots of mythology diggin deep in norse can be fun look at blood borne (video game) but i recomend looking at some not so well known just for insperation, also think about what has already been done.

thats my tips but i dont know if they are good as no one knows about my own setting

>>50748003
>>50749093
FUCK wrong thread

The only problem I have with the initiative setting isn't a problem with the initiative system, but instead turns and rounds and the abstractness of them. It's not immediately evident to most players that the sum of all rounds (the turn) was a simultaneous simulation of 6 seconds of real time. The warrior slashing the goblin, the mage casting a spell, all while 2 other goblins lobbed arrows at the two happened simultaneously in the last 6 seconds, the order of which was determined (roughly) by initiative. However, it's very hard to get into the mindset of simultaneous action when you're dealing with turn order; your mind naturally sees it as a list and assumes a rather silly notion that the warrior slashing and killing a goblin during his 6 second turn happened while time was suspended for you while you expend another 6 seconds to make an action in which time stops and resumes for each PC and NPC rather than a toppling chain reaction unfolding before your eyes: it's something most players have to be conditioned into.

Even as someone who has been playing D&D for a long time, I sometimes falls into the "time stop trap" when making a turn. But at the end of the day it all boils down to how well your DM can narrate combat and bring the simultaneous actions and immediate threat of danger to life.