One of the most ingenious rules in the SWRPG cores is the way they handled putting Slots in for initiative rather than binding results to characters. There are a lot of reasons why this is cool, but the greatest of them to me is the way it allows the combat sequence to have some narrative sense. In most random count off Initiative systems you get actions out of sequence with the "camera" or the focal points of the action. Characters go according to the number value, not according to the action.

This can produce some counter intuitive resolutions at times. I know I have seen many times when a character is having a one on one fight to the side of the main battle and an ally will get a better initiative and come in and hit the Enemy for the last 2 points of damage killing an enemy that the other character had been essentially dueling with for several rounds. It's cool to help a friend and all, but that always feel a little cheap to me, always feels like the character who was invested in that combat diad got robbed by the other guy getting a better init score.

I am putting together a Narrative Initiative house rule but I am interested to hear how you guys use the slot system to try and preserve the narrative of the action in your games. Do your players go along with you, or do they generally just front-load heavy hitters to try and knock the weak enemies out fast, or have the guys who are likely to give boosts and setbacks go first to tee up shots?

Yeah so, the actual question is: How do you personally use the Slots to try to make a coherent narrative?

Well, we do things like have the guy in the middle of the duel go first instead of having the heavy come over. That is unless the guy in the duel asks for help. Or just doesnt like combat and would prefer the heavy get the kill.

I really think it should be up to the characters to determine who goes first, not a rule or the GM's desire. The players should also respect one another's wishes and not stomp all over each other in a competition to go first. Kinda makes the init an art form more than a set pattern, but that applies all over the place in this game

I think communication between players and an ethic a mutual respect for one another's fun is the solution. If your group doesn't have that, a rule won't fix what is wrong. If the players are all about teamwork and don't care about spotlight and drama, so be it. Let them pile on with their heavies and do the unromantic and unheroic but highly gallant thing. If the Jedi in the midst of his duel is trying to drive his opponent into the open where he will be a sitting duck, let him. But stealing another players in their crowning moment of awesome unbidden? That is a no no. If the Jedi is having his duel and the player will feel cheated out of their moment when the other players open up and kill their nemesis du juor, the other character's should hold their fire. Also, keep in mind, players are more likely to do the dramatically appropriate thing if you incentivise their doing so, or you make sure they have other things to do. For instance, while the Jedi is having his mano-a-mano saber duel with the Inquisitor the heavies should be trying to keep the oncoming company of troopers pinned down, the slicer should be trying to hack the doors open so the party can escape, and... the noble-diplomat should be inspiring the troops (giving boost dice), and watching the duel worried that if they shoot into it they might hit their (engaged) friend. They might also take a shot at a steam conduit next to the inquisitor's head, or help their friend disengage if he is knocked prone and about to be saber-bait. Etc...!

3 minutes ago, Vondy said:

For instance, while the Jedi is having his mano-a-mano saber duel with the Inquisitor the heavies should be trying to keep the oncoming company of troopers pinned down, the slicer should be trying to hack the doors open so the party can escape, and... the noble-diplomat should be inspiring the troops (giving boost dice), and watching the duel worried that if they shoot into it they might hit their (engaged) friend.

I find it best not to try and decide what characters outside of my own control "should be" doing. I let my players make their choices with their own unique mix of logic, efficiency, style, and just plain craziness.

Usually we try and let the person who initiated combat go first since it makes the most sense, but that's not a hard and fast rule either.

35 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

I find it best not to try and decide what characters outside of my own control "should be" doing. I let my players make their choices with their own unique mix of logic, efficiency, style, and just plain craziness.

Which is not at all the point. It has nothing to do with game-master's dictating what players do with their characters. Nor did I say anything of the sort. Rather, the point is: game-master's can craft scenarios in which enough is going on that everyone has something vital to do if the group is to accomplish its goals. If the scenario is so linear and the threat so focused that the only thing going on is the duel of coarse the players are going to jump-in the villain gangland style. The players may come up with a solution the game-master never envisioned and the game-master may have to adapt, but I've been running games for decades . That's not hard. On the other hand, when I was speaking about how players *should* behave I was talking about good manners between one another and I won't budge on that. I said players should communicate with one another and respect each others fun. If the player next to you at the table is having a moment of glory and doesn't want the drama killed and their thunder stolen, respect that. Gaming is a sociable activity that requires a social contract. That's not negotiable.

1 hour ago, Vondy said:

Which is not at all the point. It has nothing to do with game-master's dictating what players do with their characters. Nor did I say anything of the sort. Rather, the point is: game-master's can craft scenarios in which enough is going on that everyone has something vital to do if the group is to accomplish its goals. If the scenario is so linear and the threat so focused that the only thing going on is the duel of coarse the players are going to jump-in the villain gangland style. The players may come up with a solution the game-master never envisioned and the game-master may have to adapt, but I've been running games for decades . That's not hard. On the other hand, when I was speaking about how players *should* behave I was talking about good manners between one another and I won't budge on that. I said players should communicate with one another and respect each others fun. If the player next to you at the table is having a moment of glory and doesn't want the drama killed and their thunder stolen, respect that. Gaming is a sociable activity that requires a social contract. That's not negotiable.

I'm just saying that you should go ahead and set up encounters so that everybody has something to do, but don't assume what roles each character will fulfill. Just because there's a bad guy with a lightsaber doesn't mean another PC isn't going to lay into him with a repeating blaster and the PC with a lightsaber might instead be the guy keeping the mooks tied-up. And as for your last line, I've found that pretty much everything is negotiable. If you don't agree, I don't really care.

In regards to duels particularly, our GM often aims to spilt the party fairly frequently so that we are not necessarily able to interfere directly in our activities. On Endor, we had most of the heavy hitters locked in a epic battle on the moon's surface while the two Force emergent Tobin and Jacen fought off two Hand's of the empire on the death star and made the main reactor unstable by move objecting a gigantic crystal into the beam. Both parties were working toward disabling the death star but handled it in different scenes. You see that most of the time duels are happening, the people fighting are separated from that scene, Luke was isolated on the death star, Qui-Gon told the Queen to go on ahead, the minons on the bridge of the separatist ship dispatched swiftly e.c.t. If you want to get duels where people follow the rules, splitting up the party works. Otherwise there's nothing stopping the parties interfering in one another aside from good sportsmanship. The irony is that there wasn't this arbitary dividing line, my PC chose to get himself captured on purpose to get closer to his father being held aboard the death star, Jacen, his previous student got captured by Vader by complete chance, and there was one other force sensitive that avoided being captured and was present on Endor itself for the last leg of the battle, providing covering fire for solo's team against the 501st.

We tend to talk our slots out and decide how to use them. More often then not the combat characters take the lead for the first round, but the order differs depending on the urgency of checks. Our group is a fairly combat heavy group that have diversified roles between each of them, so having a pure "diplomatic" character isn't really a problem; most of our social characters at least have a blaster to use when they aren't doing the rallying.

If this is something that people decide on doing it's fine; otherwise if the people are getting involved in a duel that isn't their business it could get tricky; thanks to ranks in adversary and an automatic upgrade to shooting within a combat, it is fairly likely that a despair will come up that will result them shooting the wrong person within a combat. Personally a gentle person's discussion should be had however, but on the same note it is also the NPC's role to understand when the tides have turned and when to cut their loses and run if the PC's are preforming way above expectation.


Despite being nemesis or inquistors Lightsaber wielding opponents might not stay and fight if a situation is clearly disadvantageous. e.g. if the party decide to completely ignore the minons and gun for him he might just chose to up and run and leave the party to the storm troopers that will continue to pile on until someone deals with them. This may result in a battle turning into a chase or alternatively will act as a way of moving the scene; the guy dueling him is mostly likely to catch up so when the guy moves from dueling in a big room into a cramped turbo lift, it reflects star war's tendency to move through a variety of environments as a battle plays out. GM's forgetting that NPC's have options other then fighting to the death can often be robbing the players from a interesting defeat.

9 hours ago, LordBritish said:

In regards to duels particularly, our GM often aims to spilt the party fairly frequently so that we are not necessarily able to interfere directly in our activities. On Endor, we had most of the heavy hitters locked in a epic battle on the moon's surface while the two Force emergent Tobin and Jacen fought off two Hand's of the empire on the death star and made the main reactor unstable by move objecting a gigantic crystal into the beam. Both parties were working toward disabling the death star but handled it in different scenes. You see that most of the time duels are happening, the people fighting are separated from that scene, Luke was isolated on the death star, Qui-Gon told the Queen to go on ahead, the minons on the bridge of the separatist ship dispatched swiftly e.c.t. If you want to get duels where people follow the rules, splitting up the party works. Otherwise there's nothing stopping the parties interfering in one another aside from good sportsmanship. The irony is that there wasn't this arbitary dividing line, my PC chose to get himself captured on purpose to get closer to his father being held aboard the death star, Jacen, his previous student got captured by Vader by complete chance, and there was one other force sensitive that avoided being captured and was present on Endor itself for the last leg of the battle, providing covering fire for solo's team against the 501st.

We tend to talk our slots out and decide how to use them. More often then not the combat characters take the lead for the first round, but the order differs depending on the urgency of checks. Our group is a fairly combat heavy group that have diversified roles between each of them, so having a pure "diplomatic" character isn't really a problem; most of our social characters at least have a blaster to use when they aren't doing the rallying.

If this is something that people decide on doing it's fine; otherwise if the people are getting involved in a duel that isn't their business it could get tricky; thanks to ranks in adversary and an automatic upgrade to shooting within a combat, it is fairly likely that a despair will come up that will result them shooting the wrong person within a combat. Personally a gentle person's discussion should be had however, but on the same note it is also the NPC's role to understand when the tides have turned and when to cut their loses and run if the PC's are preforming way above expectation.


Despite being nemesis or inquistors Lightsaber wielding opponents might not stay and fight if a situation is clearly disadvantageous. e.g. if the party decide to completely ignore the minons and gun for him he might just chose to up and run and leave the party to the storm troopers that will continue to pile on until someone deals with them. This may result in a battle turning into a chase or alternatively will act as a way of moving the scene; the guy dueling him is mostly likely to catch up so when the guy moves from dueling in a big room into a cramped turbo lift, it reflects star war's tendency to move through a variety of environments as a battle plays out. GM's forgetting that NPC's have options other then fighting to the death can often be robbing the players from a interesting defeat.

Man this was great reading, thanks for going into such detail about how this plays out in your games. I like that you guys talk about your slot assignments, and that splitting up is more normal than not. I think my groups are still in D&D mode and try to stay together even when it's not really the best way to go. Sage GM advice too. Thanks LB

Splitting the party is something that I keep in mind for my Destiny Point use. Let's face it: upgrading dice pools is the most boring thing you can use it for. The players can use it to affect the narrative, but as the GM, I already have control of it. Now, I don't wanna be a jerk, except when I do. So whenever I feel like pulling a jerk move, I flip a Destiny Point and say, "Oh, look, the tunnel caved in! Looks like you've been separated!"

14 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Man this was great reading, thanks for going into such detail about how this plays out in your games. I like that you guys talk about your slot assignments, and that splitting up is more normal than not. I think my groups are still in D&D mode and try to stay together even when it's not really the best way to go. Sage GM advice too. Thanks LB

Aye thats just the thing. The sooner the DnD mentality is dropped, the better really. The players aren't necessarily meant to be equally capable combatants but are meant to be people with independent agency, duties and roles within the universe. As such, we know when to differ to one another on various tasks.

Like one of the most memorable scenes I recall was a duel between my PC Tobin Stryder against his nemesis, a Gunslinger called Dillenger who killed his father. Tobin went alone as the party was preparing for the imperial attack that would hit the smugglers moon at any time within the next few hours. Yet unknown to him another member of the party, an assassin, had gotten to the location before him and hid within the vents unbeknown to the two characters. Yet that member didn't intervene, not when they talked and when they both inevitably reached for guns to settle the difference (The Bounty Hunter stubbornly denied to give any information to Tobin about why his father was killed) the charcter didn't roll for init either; she pretty much chose to respect the encounter and only revealed her presence when the Rodian's first shot fatally wounded the bounty hunter, really just being there as a backup incase the Rodian was gunned down first. Yet the gesture was appreciated.

Another interesting situation was that a four way party spilt was enacted on Kamino, the less brave members decided to attempt to escape the trap that ensared the entire party, the Rodian was on a one man sucide mission and one of the PC's turned out to be the daughter of the Grand Moff we were here to assassinate who had been playing us the entire time. The last was a Chadra fan that, for better or worse had basically blabbed the entire operation to black sun, had basically been strapped to the firespray cockpit and set on autopilot into the buildings of Kamino as a distraction, though she escaped and attempted to get revenge by siding with the empire... Only to get backstabbed and shoved in the cell with the rest! XD

Made for 4 equally tense angles that created situations for tailored encounters. The Rodian did succeed in the end, he managed to plant a secert bomb in the base of the Kamino platform and basically, on the prison transport ship to a more secure holding activated the detonator, completely flat footing and sinking the entire city platform with the entire Tempest project and the Grand Moff aboard, he managed to break the door open to see the Grand moff's daughter there,with both lightsabers to hand to him.

DOUBLE AGENTCEPTION! XD

I was noticing in the first sessions of my most recent campaign that the characters seemed to be continually trying to get off alone. I saw this as a problem but I guess in the future I could just accept it as a way to play this particular system. I know I really enjoy your examples of this dynamic, and it goes along with the way that the movies often depict the heroes.

2 hours ago, Archlyte said:

I was noticing in the first sessions of my most recent campaign that the characters seemed to be continually trying to get off alone. I saw this as a problem but I guess in the future I could just accept it as a way to play this particular system. I know I really enjoy your examples of this dynamic, and it goes along with the way that the movies often depict the heroes.

Aye, it's worth noting there's a difference between spiting up and being a pack of Wolverines. Spitting up means separation to accomplish tasks they can't do together, wolverine is a lone wolf who is a cool character, but you really wouldn't want to share a party with his kind. It's a fine line, but one that's easier understood in context; though spiltting a party up actually makes encounter planning much easier.

As a narrative game, Star Wars doesn't necessarily have quite as much focus on tactical options for combat as some other games. However, letting players select the turn order actually serves both. You can throw your medic last to heal any damage, you can sort of set your batting order tactically. And as mentioned in the OP, yes, that guy who went last and almost killed his nemesis, can also take the first slot to finish him off without worrying about an opportunistic ally. It creates a larger sense of teamwork at the table, IMO.