So, here I am again with a new proposal. Actually, I love the new initiative system proposed by FFG for WFRP3, but I read some criticism about the players being given too much power to coordinate themselves (although I think the same happens with fixed init games) and I thought the following could be a very simple and good addition for those who want to simulate a bit better the chaos in a combat...

Incidentally, I must say this houserule is only possible because of the system proposed for WFRP3, which really is, to me, much more inspiring than your old "fix init system"...

So here is my houserule:

- Each player should have a numerical die that allows him to choose his order in combat, i.e. if you have a group of 4 players, then each player should have a d4.

1. Roll for initiative, as in the official WFRP3 rules.
2. At the beginning of each turn, each player, without talking with the other players, has to choose with her die the order in which she wants to act. (two variants/extras here)
3. If two players choose the same position with their dice, then the player that rolled more successes in the initiative will act first (in case of tie, roll initiative until the tie is broken).

Variant 1 for step 2: give the players 30 seconds to decide. If they have not decided by then, they must roll the die (and maybe receive 1 stress).

Variant 2 for step 2: the players must also choose their free action for this turn... paying actions can be decided as normal. Still, while a player acts, other players can only shout 1 warning, i.e. 1 sentence... (I use this in Descent and it works quite well and adds to the tension). Again, if the player does not choose his action in 30 seconds, he should pick one randomly, and possibly gain 1 stress.

As you see, this would better simulate the chaos in battle and reduce the time spent in tactics talking during a combat. Also, it avoids players working as a "perfectly oiled machine". Still, I would use this houserule only with experienced players and, at the same time, the GM has to be fair and play their monsters considering their intelligence/ willpower /fellowship attributes so that they also are a bit uncoordinated.

Do you like this houserule? Any ideas to improve it?

If you wanted to do a straight up initiative roll, you could just put markers that represent the character instead of a generic marker on the track.

NezziR said:

I don't fully understand what you mean.

The houserule is not about making a straight up initiative roll... It's about avoiding players from discussing tactics during combat and knowing too much of what is going on, so that the combat is a better simulation of the chaotic nature of battle.

The advantage with the system proposed for WFRP3 against a fixed initiative system is that it gives already some sense of dynamism. With a marker that represents the character in the track, the character knows when he will act, thus getting some knowledge of what is going to happen in the round...

What I want to simulate is the fact that your character has to take a decision more or less simultaneous with the other characters and monsters involved in the fight, so they really should not know what other people have in their minds in order to make their decision...

The above houserule is not too complex and I think it would make combats quicker because you would avoid endless tactic discussions (one of the reasons I don't enjoy D&D much)... it would also allow situations where two characters shoot/hit almost simultaneously the same monster, even though the first blow would have finished it, or one character gets in front of another...

What could be maybe changed is that ties are broken by rerolling initiative, not by taking into account what each character already rolled, so that characters have even less information during the round...

As for the monsters, I'm thinking I would, as a GM, prepare some kind of random way of deciding which monster will act first and plan their actions before knowing who'll go first, so that I also don't have more information available than a real monster would have.

Sorry, I tend to be brief because most people don't read very long posts.

I wasn't suggesting that you change what you've done, I was offering a suggestion for another different way. I was saying that if one didn't like the new initiative rules they could revert to the old way of doing things by simply giving the player the place on the track that he rolled instead of giving it to the whole party. In other words, if I roll the top spot, I get the top spot instead of 'someone in the party gets the top spot'.

I personally like the new system - I won't change it. I like giving the players their choice of who goes first. One of the things I always tell my players is, 'If it works for you, it works for me'. In this case it would mean, if they get to choose who goes first, to maximize their potential, I do too. That will make my monster encounters more challenging and allow me to design encounters with complementary monsters (just like the player skills complement each other).

Life isn't as random as we'd have it be in Roleplaying games. People make plans, have strategies, and use tactics. So should monsters. I think the new initiative system reflects that well. The system you proposed is cool too. it will allow people to use a combination of the old and new ways. The reply I posted, about simply using the place rolled, will allow people to fully do things the old way. So, that's three different ways to do it. One of those should satisfy just about anyone.

I like the 'Oiled machine' because with the new rules a lot of time will be wasted when the players starts to discuss initiative order, which again might make combat a long affair. We really need to see this in a practical video session. If it all ends up in discussions on initiative order, I for one prefer the old 2nd and 1st ed locked order...

And after all I think Jay owes us a session demo video

NezziR said:

I also like the new initiative system, so I'm still not sure whether I'll use it or the houserule I propose... I'll discuss it with my players to see what they want...

My initial intention when proposing the houserule was to give an option for those who wanted mechanics to create more chaotic battles or who did not like allowing the characters to discuss tactics during combat.

Armrek said:

yeah.....then the tension goes up and the party fight....tho.....shows the GM's power WAHAHAHAHAHAHA

If you are after a more chaotic system of things you can always have player declare their character's actions before Iniative is rolled, that way a player/character cant react to what has happened in the combat itself. Though you could allow them to with some kind of penality as it would be a reactive plan instead.

I am well aware this is an old gaming method but it quite happily does the trick.

Other systems I have seen also take the iniative and then declare actions in a lowest to highest method and then resolve actions in a highest to lowest method. Was kind of an odd one but realy played up the sence of the reactive speed of the character.

I think it's reasonable, cogello.

Alternatively, you could place out an amount of tokens numbered through the quantity of players (ie, with 4 players you'd have 4 tokens, numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4). Place them in the middle/front of the players. After the initiative slots are rolled the players, without speaking, must each take a numbered token. (perhaps simultaneously, or perhaps in the order they rolled?). This is the order in which the players act. There won't be any ties, since two people can't actually the same number (well, unless they both grab the same token and play tug-of-war over it). Anyone that doesn't take a token either forfeits their turn, or gets assigned a random token by the GM (depending on how hard you want to be).