Take the 2-minute tour ×
Role-playing Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for gamemasters and players of tabletop, paper-and-pencil role-playing games. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Old D&D and D&D3E/4E treat initiative and combat order differently like so:

D&D 3.5 / 4E: All participants roll individual initiative, once only at the start of combat. Each player takes all of his combat options on his own turn. No morale rules.

Basic D&D / Labyrinth Lord: Each side declares its actions ahead of time, then rolls group initiative, at the start of each round. Each side, as a group, makes all their movement at once, then ranged, spells, and finally melee, before the next side gets their actions. Morale has monsters roll to flee when the first ally is killed and when half their number are killed.

How does the difference affect combat? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the oldschool system? Is combat faster or slower under the old system, or is it more or less difficult to keep everything in order?

share|improve this question
6  
Worth noting: there's a third alternative (AD&D) that uses group initiative, but everyone does their full set of actions before the next player. All of one side goes before the other, but the characters on each side can go in whatever order they decide together. –  SevenSidedDie Apr 19 '11 at 17:35
2  
+1 for @SevenSidedDie's comment. In our chat-based game, we used this method several times. Roll individual initiative for each PC and Monster as normal - the best group average wins top of the round. Then, depending on your play/DM style, you can either have everyone go in order of highest-to-lowest initiative within the group's turn or let the turn orders be negotiated on-the-fly. Of course, to maintain this you'll have to do away with (or modify) some of the 4th Ed. rules on delayed turns and held actions. –  Iszi Apr 19 '11 at 20:57

3 Answers 3

up vote 13 down vote accepted

Combat in the old-school systems is immensely faster. Yes, there are also fewer interdependencies between actions than in WotC-era editions, which reduces the amount of tactical wrangling over what each player should do; but even apart from a simpler choice of actions, everyone taking actions at once just vastly simplifies the process of getting the round done.

Having players all take their turns together simplifies the planning of the round. Because order of the players' actions when moving or attacking isn't a rule-bound thing, it's easy and comfortable to declare an action, realise it's a bad idea, and quickly roll that back to do something else. Getting everyone's actions to work together cleanly is just a much simpler process due to the flexibility of moving all at once. Even in a tactically-complicated round where people are thinking hard on the best way to execute things, even one where people are declaring actions and then rolling them back because they suddenly see a better alternative, the rounds are quick and there are few mental, logistical, or rules barriers to moving the action along at a brisk pace.

Since the players are all going pretty much together, they don't tend to "check out" and stop paying attention to the round. The gain in speed from not having to remind the next player that it's their turn, and not having to repeat everything that just happened to get them up-to-speed, is not inconsiderable.

Keeping things in order is actually simpler because there is less to the mental model the players have to individually retain and collectively synchronise. You just don't have to keep track of turn order or think about who should do what when on which turn to make a tactic work. There are no wait actions, no triggers, no finicky positioning work to make sure people are in the right place when someone casts a certain spell three initiative-turns later in the round.

share|improve this answer
1  
+1 +1 +1 +1, speed is a huge advantage. Unless its mano-a-mano, I alwasy do group initiative and just work around the table. Much simpler, much less overhead. –  GrandmasterB Apr 19 '11 at 18:33
    
+1. What we do: Pick a character who seems to be the group 'commander'. That character rolls initiative, and any 'tactics' skills (or the like) come into play on this roll. The rest of the group uses that initiative. If you wish to break off from group initiative (e.g., left the immediate area, acting on your own), roll your own initiative before the round starts and use it. Seems to work well for us. –  James Apr 19 '11 at 21:15
2  
@James Write that up as an answer with your experiences. Sounds fascinating and deserves an upvote. –  Brian Ballsun-Stanton Apr 20 '11 at 2:02
    
In my experience, it has been true that the players work together more often when using group initiative than when using individual initiative. –  Robert Fisher Jun 4 '13 at 13:35

There were, in BXCMI D&D, 2 options for initiative.... Group and individual, both rolled every round.

Group is fast, simple, and straightforward. It also ignores individual considerations like Dexterity, gear, and racial sensory bonuses. It's harder, however, to keep track of who's doing what, since the players can act in any order. It's much easier on the GM, however, as he can work through his NPC's and monsters in any logical order.

Individual is slower, since every round the GM has to determine who goes in what order. It does, however tend to give PC's an advantage in AD&D and BXCMI/Cyclopedia... because all monsters are presumed to have +0 from attributes! In 3.X and 4.X, where full stats are provided, it's less advantage. Note that, in AD&D, weapon speed factors into this, a lot. Many AD&D groups did use it just because it ekes just a hair more performance out of the PC's.

Persistent Group: makes it just "Our turn, their turn." Fastest option of the bunch.

Persistent Individual: fairly fast; the order can be written, and everyone knows when their turn is coming. In large battles, however, this tends to reduce attention span, as people will know when it's close to their turn, and are more likely to grab a book or get a snack.

  • AD&D 1 & 2 presumed individual initiative with weapon and dex adjustments
  • BXCMI presumed group, but allowed readily for individual
  • 3.X presumes individual persistent, but allows for individual non-persistent. Making the change, however, slows things down immensely.
share|improve this answer

In old school D&D (Basic/1e), no group I ever played with did the declaration of actions. We knew it was there, but it was universally ignored as slowing things down and being pointless. We simply did group initiative. And it helped make combat colossally faster than in 3e/4e.

The main drawback of group initiative is that it makes combat more "swingy." One side can get in a blistering array of attacks before the other and potentially disable enough foes that the combat is one sided. Individual initiative tends towards a more staggered approach where the damage each side deals out is amortized a little more over the round.

Also, some players like being "faster than the others," so group initiative rains on their parade.

share|improve this answer
1  
The 'swing' factor is hugely important here in terms of outcomes. When whole sides get to act at once, before the other side can act at all, you will find more Curb Stomp Fights. This can be avoided by using simultaneous resolution - effects of damage happen after all actions have been taken in the round, etc. 3.5e initiative means that interruptions and back-and-forth skirmishing are the norm, with less concentrated fire resulting in instant-kills on one side or the other. –  qoonpooka May 6 '11 at 17:48

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.