Another issue is half my players don't seem to take the time to really try to understand the rules and I am often left explaining options and rules on a regular basis. So it isn't clear to them the benefits gained from initiative slots.

I absolutely hate GMing for or playing with people who refuse to at least glance at the rules for a game. Just says to me "I don't care enough to invest half an hour into figuring out how to play, so now we constantly waste a ton of time while you continually have to educate us."

This is precisely why I just spend the last hour printing 12-page reference material for my players. They'll never wonder how Advantages, Triumphs, Threats, and Despairs work in combat or with their skills ever again! Woo hoo!

So very early on in our game the PCs gnashed their teeth against the RAW initiative rules and we "reverted" back to a set initiative: your roll determines your placement. Anyone else encounter this?

Personally, I am a fan of the RAW initiative rules but I can't for the life of me figure out a way to sell my players on it. I think the primary issue for them is that it broke immersion in some instances. One particular encounter I had them spread out around a village fighting several minions, the idea that they could discuss tactics and initiative placement/order while being that spread out (let alone giving boost dice to allies they had no line of sight too) was too metagame-y for them.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

I love open initative. I might never go back to set initiatives again, even in games that assume it.

Initiative slots are better if you come at them from the point of view that you are working as a team. And as such should coordinate your actions to get maximum effect.

Initiative slots are better if you come at them from the point of view that you are working as a team. And as such should coordinate your actions to get maximum effect.

This. Plus, it's quite obvious that the game was designed this way. What with effects lasting "until the end of the next round" and such, timing your turn can be a crucial aspect of gameplay.

I absolutely hate GMing for or playing with people who refuse to at least glance at the rules for a game. Just says to me "I don't care enough to invest half an hour into figuring out how to play, so now we constantly waste a ton of time while you continually have to educate us."

Don't hate. It leads to the dark side. Fyi......

Here is another thought:

Many times during our D&D sessions (any edition), my players created strategies that depended on a PC staying in the same spot, not killing a certain enemy, or using a power/ability that depended on the actions of another player remaining static OR a particular PC going first.

Myself as a GM, I nix any meta- or table talk if I feel that the characters would not be able to communicate those strategies to each other in any immediate manner in that moment. I will cut people off immediately in a polite manner, and my table doesn't mind. It ramps up the tension as to whether the two players can synergize their approaches to a situation.

Having said all of that, how many times have we had sessions where during a set initiative system, one player takes a turn, does stuff, and another player at the table screams out about how if they had only been able to go before player A, they would have been able to do this and that and it would have been so epic OR conversely prevented that awful thing from happening to the party healer, and now they're all screwed.

I like the open initiative system because it allows the players with awesome ideas to jump on a slot ahead of someone who might otherwise have just made a mundane attack or skill check that would have rendered the cool idea un-doable. They can take the slot and make the checks, and if they succeed have this great cinematic moment of Errol Flynn like greatness that leaves the party breathless.

This system allows for those "If I do this, THEN you do that, THEN we can do the other thing" situations that make for great strategy that doesn't really have to be defined as Meta, or whatever.

So, if they are used to set initiative, remind them of those If Only moments, and even point them out as they traverse the new system.

"Well you know, you would have been able to do your cool thing before Sam ruined the setup if we were playing with the open order...Hee hee hee..."

After running EotE games for some time I tend to prefer the old set Initiative method. Why? Because I have played with too many players who when given a chance to choose Initiative in this system were slowing the combat encounter. They tended to start thinking "who goes first", either because they were too nice to each other (I play through roll20 with random players) or because each of them was waiting for other one to do something. For me it was like, by giving an option, a possibility to choose the slot, the system was creating another thing to think about it and thus slowing the encounter. When the initiative is fixed, then they will simply act. Anyone else had a similar experience?

I wouldn't let them 'think' after the dice are rolled. Planning is something that should be done before the fight starts, so they should have discussions related to who rolls well on the check and who has what Talent that is good to make sure is used right off. Once those dice are rolled I'd impose a time limit if PCs are dragging @$$.

It seems weird at first but that is just because it is different. My players don't even think about it anymore, deciding on the order of a particular round just seems like part of the planning process now, and actually takes up a lot of their tactical discussions. If I tried to go to a "you go with what you rolled" system now they would probably complain!

Thanks, lots of food for thought. Another issue is half my players don't seem to take the time to really try to understand the rules and I am often left explaining options and rules on a regular basis. So it isn't clear to them the benefits gained from initiative slots.

Well, if they ain't even bothering to learn the rules then they shouldn't get to comment on them. If they want in on decisions of what rules to follow then they should put the time and effort into learning them.

We use a modified initiative rule for space combat and action. Some of the encounters I build for space tend to be pretty large with lots of targets and options to do things. So instead of initiative for every person in the party and every NPC, we roll initiative for ships and groups of ships. The player determine their own initiative order after that and stick to it for the duration of the encounter.

I only ask for Initiative rolls if they're necessary (because of timing): "Yeah, so one of the NPCs is going to use a Maneuver to move to the alarm and second Maneuver to activate it... Ah, you want to interrupt them? Roll a Simple Contested Vigilance vs their Cool to see if you notice what they're doing and can intercept them in time..." Likewise NPCs can do the same in an attempt to intercept a PC's activity. As long as everyone only acts once (with the exception of the Nemesis additional turn rule), timing isn't generally that relevant for our table.

It's worked for my EotE and FaD games so far...

Okay, our group had issues with the new initiative system and I was one of the slowest adapters.

However, once I understood the RAW, and played it through two combats, I began to understand the benefits of this system.

We're never going back. This game is not well suited for a "set initiative" system.

Now the real issue is how to convince a bunch of casual players who aren't really invested in learning this new system?

Hmmm. . . .

Well, a lot of people who have commented have already mentioned how they track initiative. (We use red and green poker chips; Red for the bad guys [us] and green for the good guys). [yes, I jest].

You may want to adopt a similar system and when a player's slot opens up, just ask casually, so which player is going next. DO NOT TRACK THEIR INITIATIVE RESULTS after that first dice roll. Our GM has a spreadsheet and it has a list of PC or friendly slots and a list of opposition slots. He doesn't keep track of who rolled what and after all of the dice are recorded, he simply resorts the spreadsheet by initiative results.

Then he orders a series of Red and Green chips to be pulled in the sequence rolled.

You could do something similar and if the players want to still tie themselves to their rolls, let 'em. Eventually they may figure out the advantage to changing up their turn order. Or they may not.

In the end if everyone is having a good time, then cool. If they aren't then not cool.

Part of the problem with casual players is that they aren't willing to invest a whole lot of brain power to the experience. And you're asking people to completely change a gaming convention that has been established and used for about 40 years. A bit of patience may be in order.

Yes its a better system, especially for the Star Wars Role Playing Game (SW RPG), but a bit of patience is in order. It took me a while to warm up to this new initiative convention, but the change was well worth it.

Another thought for you to consider (and a tool I use on occasion) is to inform the players, I've taken this issue to the FFG forums and here is their counsel and advice.

You currently have about two dozen players and GM's who have agreed that the initiative RAW for the SW RPG are ultimately better for the PC's and the rules work better. That may help your players understand the importance of playing with the RAW.