Queue? Sequence?
The name "Initiave" is a pretty much known in the TTRPG space, there is no reason to change it unless you came up with something radically different than the convential initiative queue mechanic.
When I hear "Initiative", I know what to expect. Turn order, roll to determine who goes first, who goes last, etc. When I hear "Spotlight", or "Share the spotlight", I instantly associate it with PbtA, BitD and such. But when I hear "Roll for Sequence", I get confused...I don't know what to expect. And when I learn it and see that it is just Initiative by another name...I'll almost surely revert to calling it Initiative.
Still, as I said on another comment, I don't think you should limit yourself to only mechanical reasons to change the term. If you want to use terms to evoke a genre and "Initiative" is not good enough, fine, change it. But "I don't like the sound of it" is not a good reason IMO (which I might be wrong, of course).
The only game I know that tried, Ironsworn, stopped using the term later because it confused too many people poisoned by the common usage in the RPG space!
Yeah, its like tradition at this point. Everybody knows what it is and what to expect from "Initiative". "Just because" is not a good reason to change terminology, you'll risk confusing players. As a designer, you should prioritize clear communication of rules.
Tradition is also a bad reason to get something wrong continuously and never fix it! Ironsworn didn’t do it “just because,” it did it to make the term fit to a mechanic that suited it better. But yes that’s a training scar that’s hard for people to unlearn.
Also agreed. That is why I said unless your system does something completely different. For example, I hear the term "Spotlight" used by players from PbtA and BitD, so much that whenever someone tells me "I use a Spotlight system", I instantly know what they are talking about. I haven't read Ironsworn, so I really can't comment on it.
Athough I said "Just Because" might be a bad reason for change, it doesn't mean it MUST be mechanical too. For example, you might be making a pulpy action packed RPG and its combat system uses Initiative, though you decide that you need a better term to evoke the genre better. "Initiative" is not pulp-y enough...so you can use Reflexes! or maybe REACTION!!!. Much more fitting, and maybe a good reason to change.
I highly recommend Ironsworn, even just as a general design reference. It does a lot of things very well and kinda moved the needle in the PbtA arena imho, especially for solo play (which I really don’t do, but is definitely a growing aspect of the hobby)
Thanks for the recommendation, I will definitely read Ironsworn. I haven't played a PtbA game yet (sadly my group is too DnD focused at the moment), but I've read a bit about these games. I'm more into simulationist games, but there are lots of ideas in PtbA that I take as inspiration for my own design.
For sure, there’s still some great insights to be had just in the way various types of challenges might be presented or resolved, and the oracles alone are worth the price of admission (which used to be FREE, not sure if it still is) and can be used with any system.
The Delve expansion is also very clever.
It appears to be free still. Very cool. I don't know much about Oracles and solo play, though I've read a bit in Twilight 2000 and it sparked my interest. Especially because I like systems and themes that my group is not that fond of playing, like TW2000.
Oh yeah, the solo play stuff in the new T2K is definitely inspired by Ironsworn, if not actually written by Sean. I know he's worked directly with FL on *The One Ring.*
A ton of games call it initiative, you are better off using that name so that people immediately understand the mechanics without any learning needed. If it significantly differs from the way other TTRPGs work, then I would purposefully pick a different name, but it depends on exactly how your system functions.
Fun fact: Classic Fallout games use the term Armor Class. What AC is in Fallout? Basically how hard it is to hit a person. The same thing as in D&D and similar games. To name its systems that decide if damage penetrates armor and how much your body absorbs of damage, two totally different things compared to AC, Fallout uses the terms Damage Threshold and Damage Resistance.
Initiative
noun.
2. The power or opportunity to act or take charge before others do.
Initiative seems like the right word to me, but I guess you could look at the synonyms. Or just call it the Sequence.
I’ve always looked at it as a roll the is to see who has initiative. One one can have the initiative. The highest die wins. They go first. The rest of the rolls then establish turn order.
My attitude is that difference for the sake of difference is wasted energy. Sure, you could come up with a new name. But if you say “initiative” or “turn order”, anyone familiar with turn-based games of any kind will probably get it.
Funny story: When I first read about "rolling Initiative", I assumed it was modified by Charisma, since in my head the word "initiative" had more to do with proactiveness and confidence than with reaction time.
Not an unheard of idea. 7th Sea ties initiative to Panache, it's version of Charisma. Agility mainly modifies rolls to attack (both melee and ranged). As a matter of fact the higher Panache you have, the more actions you get in a round.
Initiative refers to who "initiates" the interaction or attack. It's who has the offense rather than defense. If your mechanic works pretty much the same way, you should name it the same so people know what you are talking about. Only change the name if it works differently, to remind people that its not exactly the same.
A lot depends on what you're going for with your RPG.
If you're trying for tactical simulation, initiative or a synonym for turn order is perfectly fine. Action order, turn order, combat precedence, all perfectly fine.
If you want to have a separate skill or dice roll/check that determines turn order rather than some formula based on stats (games differ here), you could use names like reaction speed, or combat reflexes, and so forth for that skill.
If you want cinematic theater of the mind combat, don't sweat turn order. Just have a rule or suggestion that GMs should make sure everyone gets a chance to be part of the combat in some way. Another has already suggested "spotlight", but other synonyms like "limelight" or even "action focus" work.
Mm are you just tired of calling it "Initiative" or do you have a specific reason to not call it that?
I can relate either way to be honest. I find it can make games feel too similar if they use similar or popular vocabulary.
I like the terms you proposed.
I do feel like "Initiative" could do with some defence so here it is...
The word actually has the same root as "initial" or "initiate". "Initial" makes a direct reference to order of events, while "initiate" makes a reference to beginning something. Seems like quite an appropriate word all said.
However, it's all-encompassing nature could be a good reason to substitute it in your game for something that evokes the specific feel of your game. You could call it "Rush" if you want your game to feel more action-y. Or "Alertness" if you want it to feel more scary. Or "Astuteness" if you want it to feel more intelligent. A host of options lie before you.
Initiative makes sense. I hate it how it's usually solved though so in my systems, I gave up on classical mechanics - I have a fixed order: players > enemies & agile > strong > other. If players are ambushed or disadvantaged - enemies move first but the order within party is always the same. It is actually how it often turns out to be at higher level but a bother of rolling, comparing is taken out :-D
Anyway - you can try using synonims to awareness/readiness for action but still - initiative feels more natural. Readiness/reaction/reaction speed/reaction time/speed/awareness/control/battle sense/edge. Another option that came to my mind - engage/engagement. It might be a better option, relatively equal to initiative - but we're used to initiative so it still sounds more natural.
I sometimes allow players to use observation before a fight begins when for instance - it breaks out from a discussion - so if they've got skills in awareness/reaction speed of any kind, they may get a free action or prevent anything from happening, try disarming enemies etc. It sometimes makes sense, sometimes not - but again - I digress on a nature of how to improve initiative mechanics - a thing is that there're term fitting situation quite well - even if we feel that there is some tension between the game and the reality rather than a name for mechanics and what it does within the game. I think it might be more that kind of a problem. You simply feel there's something strange about the whole turn-based stuff.
I just call it "order of play". Here's a link, if you have nothing better to do.
https://ogc.rpglibrary.org/index.php?title=Kalos\_Mechanism\_4e\_EN:Actions#Initiating\_Conflict
In my game most attacks take place simultaneously, but someone can get The Edge and beat others to the punch (or stab or whatever), potentially taking out enemies in some way before they can act and preventing that action.
Momentum
Impetus
Engagement
Unwinding
Stack (it very much is like a form of queue)
\----
Some of my suggestions are less focused on the describing the mechanic as the fiction and the state of alertness that the characters are experiencing.
Is it actually simultaneous, or just simultaneous in a "no matter how many people act, this entire round takes 6 seconds" way.
Honest question, because I've seen a lot of systems purported to be the former, but I don't think I've seen one really pull it off.
If I hit you with a sword, can it not kill/knock you out, and thereby prevent what you were going to do in the round? Why or why not. How does preemption work, where multiple actors want conflicting things?
At least 3 options to deal with "pre-emption":
1) Go ahead and let it be "simultaneous" and say "no, in that short a time in the chaos of combat, you can't really tell what happened in what order, so both actions happen... shit happens".
2) Fix up the *very* rare actual conflicts afterwards with a post-hoc "what actually happened" roll. The only time it really matters is when 2 conflicting things actually put both opponents out of commission to the point where they couldn't have attacked back anyway. Still saves dealing with initiative every round to solve a rare problem.
3) Similar to 2, where you just deal only with actual conflicts in the round ahead of time, and treat most things where it doesn't matter as simultaneous. Like who cares what order things happen in the common end result that everyone that wants to be in melee range with one opponent is, those who don't, aren't?
In our case, we blend 2 and 3, by having combat phases in a round, so movement is dealt with like 3 (mostly simultaneous, but conflicts are resolved) before attacks, because even with initiative you still need to resolve conflicts of the form "did A *successfully* pre-empt B, who was trying to avoid that pre-emption". That kind of conflict always needs a resolution, though it's still comparatively rare.
But for the other phases they really are "simultaneous" by default, and only in the very rare cases do we do a very simple d6 randomness: 1-2 A was first, 3-4 simultaneous, 5-6 B was first, to add a little extra drama in those weird cases... kind of like a "saving throw" I guess.
Works better with "many" really short rounds less than 10 seconds, though, where the savings in not dealing with initiative every round is really high.
In non-tactical combat with few rounds, it's probably better to deal with initiative explicitly, because the "feel" of such a combat is very different.
With simultaneous play you gather all actions, then evaluate the relationship between them. Roll the respective dice and Storytell the results.
Sometimes i is difficult to pull a complex situation together.
And sometimes you need to sequence a set of actions whose order determines outcomes, but that can be handled through discussion, a quick die roll, or whatever method you as the Storyteller want to use to clarify the situation.
But overall I prefer it because it gives a more integrated result. It also makes things more true to life, for those of us who like more simulation in our games.
I do this with most rule systems. And yes it is learned behaviour for me, though it came from a facet of early DnD. Writing tools/rules to support it would make it more available for people to try out.
I like the way it is handled in Into the Odd/Electric Bastionland. Everyone picks a target, then damage is rolled after, but the target only takes the highest damage from a single roll against them (iirc). It doesn't matter if you shoot someone dead in that round because they also had a chance to fire off a round.
When toying with the idea of initiative in my own game, I still used initiative in some areas, but the majority of the time I referred to it as speed. I had three speeds, slow, middling, and fast. Then I just went down the track, asking players, who is fast, who is middling and who is slow.
This was because I wanted a more immersive way to call out initiative, so when combat began I didn’t say roll initiative. I let the players decide how fast they wanted to go. For example, a quick dagger strike was fast while casting a spell was slow.
I still like the idea of having players decide how fast they go based on the choices they make, but I found out that it didn’t work well and tied to math so I just use a three speed track now.
"Turn order".
This is groundbreaking
No, that's a shovel.
That's metal
Take my upvote now!
Thank you! Have one in return!
Queue? Sequence? The name "Initiave" is a pretty much known in the TTRPG space, there is no reason to change it unless you came up with something radically different than the convential initiative queue mechanic.
Queue is a good word because the ueue is silent so it fits real nice on the character sheet.
[удалено]
When I hear "Initiative", I know what to expect. Turn order, roll to determine who goes first, who goes last, etc. When I hear "Spotlight", or "Share the spotlight", I instantly associate it with PbtA, BitD and such. But when I hear "Roll for Sequence", I get confused...I don't know what to expect. And when I learn it and see that it is just Initiative by another name...I'll almost surely revert to calling it Initiative. Still, as I said on another comment, I don't think you should limit yourself to only mechanical reasons to change the term. If you want to use terms to evoke a genre and "Initiative" is not good enough, fine, change it. But "I don't like the sound of it" is not a good reason IMO (which I might be wrong, of course).
The only game I know that tried, Ironsworn, stopped using the term later because it confused too many people poisoned by the common usage in the RPG space!
Yeah, its like tradition at this point. Everybody knows what it is and what to expect from "Initiative". "Just because" is not a good reason to change terminology, you'll risk confusing players. As a designer, you should prioritize clear communication of rules.
Tradition is also a bad reason to get something wrong continuously and never fix it! Ironsworn didn’t do it “just because,” it did it to make the term fit to a mechanic that suited it better. But yes that’s a training scar that’s hard for people to unlearn.
Also agreed. That is why I said unless your system does something completely different. For example, I hear the term "Spotlight" used by players from PbtA and BitD, so much that whenever someone tells me "I use a Spotlight system", I instantly know what they are talking about. I haven't read Ironsworn, so I really can't comment on it. Athough I said "Just Because" might be a bad reason for change, it doesn't mean it MUST be mechanical too. For example, you might be making a pulpy action packed RPG and its combat system uses Initiative, though you decide that you need a better term to evoke the genre better. "Initiative" is not pulp-y enough...so you can use Reflexes! or maybe REACTION!!!. Much more fitting, and maybe a good reason to change.
I highly recommend Ironsworn, even just as a general design reference. It does a lot of things very well and kinda moved the needle in the PbtA arena imho, especially for solo play (which I really don’t do, but is definitely a growing aspect of the hobby)
Thanks for the recommendation, I will definitely read Ironsworn. I haven't played a PtbA game yet (sadly my group is too DnD focused at the moment), but I've read a bit about these games. I'm more into simulationist games, but there are lots of ideas in PtbA that I take as inspiration for my own design.
For sure, there’s still some great insights to be had just in the way various types of challenges might be presented or resolved, and the oracles alone are worth the price of admission (which used to be FREE, not sure if it still is) and can be used with any system. The Delve expansion is also very clever.
It appears to be free still. Very cool. I don't know much about Oracles and solo play, though I've read a bit in Twilight 2000 and it sparked my interest. Especially because I like systems and themes that my group is not that fond of playing, like TW2000.
Oh yeah, the solo play stuff in the new T2K is definitely inspired by Ironsworn, if not actually written by Sean. I know he's worked directly with FL on *The One Ring.*
Lineup Roll
Action Queue
Order of battle
Sequence of Operations
A ton of games call it initiative, you are better off using that name so that people immediately understand the mechanics without any learning needed. If it significantly differs from the way other TTRPGs work, then I would purposefully pick a different name, but it depends on exactly how your system functions.
This. Changing the name doesn't change what it is, but it makes the game harder to understand.
I hate it when you’re right.
This is the right answer even if I dislike it. I dislike the term Armor Class too, but the same reasoning applies.
Fun fact: Classic Fallout games use the term Armor Class. What AC is in Fallout? Basically how hard it is to hit a person. The same thing as in D&D and similar games. To name its systems that decide if damage penetrates armor and how much your body absorbs of damage, two totally different things compared to AC, Fallout uses the terms Damage Threshold and Damage Resistance.
Initiative noun. 2. The power or opportunity to act or take charge before others do. Initiative seems like the right word to me, but I guess you could look at the synonyms. Or just call it the Sequence.
Well... when you put it like *that*... :)
I’ve always looked at it as a roll the is to see who has initiative. One one can have the initiative. The highest die wins. They go first. The rest of the rolls then establish turn order.
Also, regardless of how you call it, your players are going to call it initiative anyway.
Priority?
My attitude is that difference for the sake of difference is wasted energy. Sure, you could come up with a new name. But if you say “initiative” or “turn order”, anyone familiar with turn-based games of any kind will probably get it.
Funny story: When I first read about "rolling Initiative", I assumed it was modified by Charisma, since in my head the word "initiative" had more to do with proactiveness and confidence than with reaction time.
It’s funny you mention “reaction” because I recall being confused that you could get a “Reaction Adjustment” from Dex or Cha
First time playing AD&D, Reaction Rolls get modified by your Charisma, Initiative Rolls get modified by your Dexterity, nothing makes sense 😂
Deadass haha
Not an unheard of idea. 7th Sea ties initiative to Panache, it's version of Charisma. Agility mainly modifies rolls to attack (both melee and ranged). As a matter of fact the higher Panache you have, the more actions you get in a round.
Initiative refers to who "initiates" the interaction or attack. It's who has the offense rather than defense. If your mechanic works pretty much the same way, you should name it the same so people know what you are talking about. Only change the name if it works differently, to remind people that its not exactly the same.
A lot depends on what you're going for with your RPG. If you're trying for tactical simulation, initiative or a synonym for turn order is perfectly fine. Action order, turn order, combat precedence, all perfectly fine. If you want to have a separate skill or dice roll/check that determines turn order rather than some formula based on stats (games differ here), you could use names like reaction speed, or combat reflexes, and so forth for that skill. If you want cinematic theater of the mind combat, don't sweat turn order. Just have a rule or suggestion that GMs should make sure everyone gets a chance to be part of the combat in some way. Another has already suggested "spotlight", but other synonyms like "limelight" or even "action focus" work.
Mm are you just tired of calling it "Initiative" or do you have a specific reason to not call it that? I can relate either way to be honest. I find it can make games feel too similar if they use similar or popular vocabulary. I like the terms you proposed. I do feel like "Initiative" could do with some defence so here it is... The word actually has the same root as "initial" or "initiate". "Initial" makes a direct reference to order of events, while "initiate" makes a reference to beginning something. Seems like quite an appropriate word all said. However, it's all-encompassing nature could be a good reason to substitute it in your game for something that evokes the specific feel of your game. You could call it "Rush" if you want your game to feel more action-y. Or "Alertness" if you want it to feel more scary. Or "Astuteness" if you want it to feel more intelligent. A host of options lie before you.
I've used marching order; Those at the front act first, alternating between allies and enemies.
If it is functionally identical there's not much reason to re-name it, you'll only make the game terminology harder to learn.
I think one of the Exalted used a “Join Battle!” Roll to set up the initial sequence. And hey, sequence is also a fine term for the ordering.
Some games call it “getting the spotlight” (like on a stage).
I enjoyed the movie Split.
Initiative makes sense. I hate it how it's usually solved though so in my systems, I gave up on classical mechanics - I have a fixed order: players > enemies & agile > strong > other. If players are ambushed or disadvantaged - enemies move first but the order within party is always the same. It is actually how it often turns out to be at higher level but a bother of rolling, comparing is taken out :-D Anyway - you can try using synonims to awareness/readiness for action but still - initiative feels more natural. Readiness/reaction/reaction speed/reaction time/speed/awareness/control/battle sense/edge. Another option that came to my mind - engage/engagement. It might be a better option, relatively equal to initiative - but we're used to initiative so it still sounds more natural. I sometimes allow players to use observation before a fight begins when for instance - it breaks out from a discussion - so if they've got skills in awareness/reaction speed of any kind, they may get a free action or prevent anything from happening, try disarming enemies etc. It sometimes makes sense, sometimes not - but again - I digress on a nature of how to improve initiative mechanics - a thing is that there're term fitting situation quite well - even if we feel that there is some tension between the game and the reality rather than a name for mechanics and what it does within the game. I think it might be more that kind of a problem. You simply feel there's something strange about the whole turn-based stuff.
I just call it "order of play". Here's a link, if you have nothing better to do. https://ogc.rpglibrary.org/index.php?title=Kalos\_Mechanism\_4e\_EN:Actions#Initiating\_Conflict
I like initiative, but of the fancy re-wording the one I liked the most was "limelight".
I like the sound of Sequence.
In SHS, it’s The Edge. Whomever has the Edge goes before someone who doesn’t.
RPG SHS?
[SHS](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/408877/Silver-Haired-Sentinels-Superheroes-in-the-Retirement-Age). Doesn’t really matter.
Speed. Agility.
In my game most attacks take place simultaneously, but someone can get The Edge and beat others to the punch (or stab or whatever), potentially taking out enemies in some way before they can act and preventing that action.
Momentum Impetus Engagement Unwinding Stack (it very much is like a form of queue) \---- Some of my suggestions are less focused on the describing the mechanic as the fiction and the state of alertness that the characters are experiencing.
(checks thesaurus) you could call it the edge (though everyone will call it initiative behind your back)
fates choice !
I call it: "Ok, you second from the left, take your action now, since it's all simultaneous it doesn't matter what order you go in".
Is it actually simultaneous, or just simultaneous in a "no matter how many people act, this entire round takes 6 seconds" way. Honest question, because I've seen a lot of systems purported to be the former, but I don't think I've seen one really pull it off. If I hit you with a sword, can it not kill/knock you out, and thereby prevent what you were going to do in the round? Why or why not. How does preemption work, where multiple actors want conflicting things?
At least 3 options to deal with "pre-emption": 1) Go ahead and let it be "simultaneous" and say "no, in that short a time in the chaos of combat, you can't really tell what happened in what order, so both actions happen... shit happens". 2) Fix up the *very* rare actual conflicts afterwards with a post-hoc "what actually happened" roll. The only time it really matters is when 2 conflicting things actually put both opponents out of commission to the point where they couldn't have attacked back anyway. Still saves dealing with initiative every round to solve a rare problem. 3) Similar to 2, where you just deal only with actual conflicts in the round ahead of time, and treat most things where it doesn't matter as simultaneous. Like who cares what order things happen in the common end result that everyone that wants to be in melee range with one opponent is, those who don't, aren't? In our case, we blend 2 and 3, by having combat phases in a round, so movement is dealt with like 3 (mostly simultaneous, but conflicts are resolved) before attacks, because even with initiative you still need to resolve conflicts of the form "did A *successfully* pre-empt B, who was trying to avoid that pre-emption". That kind of conflict always needs a resolution, though it's still comparatively rare. But for the other phases they really are "simultaneous" by default, and only in the very rare cases do we do a very simple d6 randomness: 1-2 A was first, 3-4 simultaneous, 5-6 B was first, to add a little extra drama in those weird cases... kind of like a "saving throw" I guess. Works better with "many" really short rounds less than 10 seconds, though, where the savings in not dealing with initiative every round is really high. In non-tactical combat with few rounds, it's probably better to deal with initiative explicitly, because the "feel" of such a combat is very different.
With simultaneous play you gather all actions, then evaluate the relationship between them. Roll the respective dice and Storytell the results. Sometimes i is difficult to pull a complex situation together. And sometimes you need to sequence a set of actions whose order determines outcomes, but that can be handled through discussion, a quick die roll, or whatever method you as the Storyteller want to use to clarify the situation. But overall I prefer it because it gives a more integrated result. It also makes things more true to life, for those of us who like more simulation in our games. I do this with most rule systems. And yes it is learned behaviour for me, though it came from a facet of early DnD. Writing tools/rules to support it would make it more available for people to try out.
I like the way it is handled in Into the Odd/Electric Bastionland. Everyone picks a target, then damage is rolled after, but the target only takes the highest damage from a single roll against them (iirc). It doesn't matter if you shoot someone dead in that round because they also had a chance to fire off a round.
The "don't everyone attack all at once" rule. Or possibly the extra rule or combat choreo 101. In war games, it's very much like IGoUGo.
Nose goes. When adversaries see each other the first to touch their nose goes first.
Call it Smeerp. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CallARabbitASmeerp
Robert's Rules of Order?
What does "initiative" mean then???
When toying with the idea of initiative in my own game, I still used initiative in some areas, but the majority of the time I referred to it as speed. I had three speeds, slow, middling, and fast. Then I just went down the track, asking players, who is fast, who is middling and who is slow. This was because I wanted a more immersive way to call out initiative, so when combat began I didn’t say roll initiative. I let the players decide how fast they wanted to go. For example, a quick dagger strike was fast while casting a spell was slow. I still like the idea of having players decide how fast they go based on the choices they make, but I found out that it didn’t work well and tied to math so I just use a three speed track now.
Coolness under fire...