Incline What's a Better Initiative System?

[Butter]

Let's say you're tasked with designing a turn-based game. Which of these initiative systems do you choose, and why? Is one objectively better than the other?

System 1:

Each character gets one turn per round. Characters act in order from highest initiative to lowest initiative.

Adam has 6 Initiative.
Bob has 8 Initiative.
Charles has 13 Initiative.
David has 10 Initiative.
Edward has 11 Initiative.

Turn order is Charles, Edward, David, Bob, Adam. This repeats predictably each round.

System 2:

There are no discreet rounds. Instead Initiative acts like a sort of cooldown; the higher a character's Initiative, the faster he can take another action.

Adam has 6 Initiative.
Bob has 8 Initiative.
Charles has 13 Initiative.
David has 10 Initiative.
Edward has 11 Initiative.

Turn order is Charles, Edward, David, Bob, Adam, Charles, Edward, David, Charles, Bob, Edward, Adam, David, Charles, Edward, Bob, Charles, David, etc...

Note that the turn order starts out the same as in System 1, but over time Charles is getting quite a few more turns than Adam.

Is there another way of handling Initiative that's better than either of these approaches?

 

[lukaszek]

round robin!

 

[Alienman]

Not that versed in this, but I prefer system 1 if you can affect it with wounds, spells, potions etc. System 1 also makes for simple calculations.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

System 1 is better of course. System 2 conflates initiative with attack speed, which are 2 different things.

The thing about initiative that a lot of games get wrong is how does it start? In a lot of games, whoever starts the combat gets to go first, at least on the initial round. But since combat is typically started by whoever spots the other person first, non-human NPCs typically initiate combat, so they generally go first. This sucks.

In Underrail, there was a much better system, where unless someone attacks from stealth, or literally attacks, the person with the higher initiative goes first even in the first round. This simulates quick-draw builds a lot better.

 

[OSK]

Tactics Ogre uses System 2 with an interesting wrinkle. Equipment has weight which slows you down and makes your turns take longer to arrive. Heavier armor might protect better, but that's not much use if you're too slow to get in position or attack. Actions can also take time making your next turn take longer. It might be preferable to cast a quick, less powerful spell over a more more powerful one that takes longer to cast.

I think I'd prefer System 1 unless you introduce additional mechanics to take advantage of it.

 

[Saduj]

Wasteland 2 had the second type of system and it was very easily abused. Personally I like the 1st system because I’m used to it. But rolling for initiative every turn might be interesting. Allowing characters to have extra turns is just too powerful, IMO.

 

[Sweeper]

System 1 but I add random rolls to the initiative for RNG.
I ain't even a dev, but I know that deep inside me there lurks a sadistic monster that wants to torture the people that buy his product... just like Styg.

 

[deuxhero]

I have once seen a game with system 2 not devolve down to unit/class worth being almost entirely dependent upon their speed. Wild Arms XF avoids it only because of its wonky VP mechanic (basically every unit has a fatigue stat that lowers whenever you take a turn, passing turn does not nullify this cost without a special ability, and it's not easy to heal this fatigue) and its map/enemy design being hard counter heavy to force certain class combos be used (e.g., it doesn't mater if the mage is slow, you still need a mage because these enemies resist physical damage). That's hardly an ideal solution.

 

[Pocgels]

Well, initial turn order and "action speed"/"time to act" don't necessarily have to be related, although they often seem to get tied together.

With system 2 they usually way overdo it, with certain characters getting 30% to as many as 200% more actions. It's fine if the fast characters are averaging 1-2 extra actions across what would be an 8-12 turn fight - Not to mention being allowed to go first or act at important moments.

 

[Covenant]

With system 2 speed/initiative becomes the king of stats, as others have described above.

With system 1 initiative is often too weak, because it only affects the first round of combat. This can be averted by having lots of save or die effects (bad, typically means the game is RNG-heavy and expects you to reload a lot), or by carefully balancing your buffs, debuffs, alpha strike capability, etc, so that speed is competitive without being overpowered. Tricky to do.

A better way would probably be to start from system 2, but have the speed normalise as the battle goes on. So your speedy ninja would be likely to get some extra moves in the first few rounds of the battle, but it'd have a diminishing effect as time goes by. Wouldn't work in some kind of games though, like those where you have to move on the map in combat (have fun starting the fight with your speedy unarmoured characters while your tanks are still running to catch up).

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Let's say you're tasked with designing a turn-based game. Which of these initiative systems do you choose, and why? Is one objectively better than the other?
...

System 2:

There are no discreet rounds. Instead Initiative acts like a sort of cooldown; the higher a character's Initiative, the faster he can take another action.

Adam has 6 Initiative.
Bob has 8 Initiative.
Charles has 13 Initiative.
David has 10 Initiative.
Edward has 11 Initiative.

Turn order is Charles, Edward, David, Bob, Adam, Charles, Edward, David, Charles, Bob, Edward, Adam, David, Charles, Edward, Bob, Charles, David, etc...

Note that the turn order starts out the same as in System 1, but over time Charles is getting quite a few more turns than Adam.

Is there another way of handling Initiative that's better than either of these approaches?

System 2 in your description is horrific because it allows Charles (13 initiative) two or more actions per action taken by Adam (6 initiative) over the course of combat, regardless of what those actions are. A far superior system is to allot differing durations to each action, according to the varying power of these actions or to some simulationist determination of how long these actions actually take, so that the player may choose an action with longer duration over one with shorter duration but at the expense of that character having to wait longer before taking another action. Troubleshooter: Abandoned Children (2020) implemented a similar system to great effect.

The list of characters on the right side of these screenshots shows upcoming turn order, with the number of time units until that turn displayed for each of the next several characters; the number of player-controlled characters in a mission can reach double-digits, and there are often many enemies involved.

 

[Ol' Willy]

System 1 with limited initiative rolls

Let's say initiative is limited to 1-10 values, and rolls could give 0, +1 or +2 bonus

 

[NecroLord]

Make Initiative a product of Perception (the ability to see and hear your opponents when they decide to initiate combat) and Dexterity (how quick you are on the draw when hostilities commence).
Make Clairvoyance a Supernatural skill or something (I predict great danger and imminent battle will occur at this date and location).

 

[Damned Registrations]

System 2 but your scale is all wrong. Number of turns taken is an incredibly powerful aspect of combat, so units with different levels of speed need to have subtle differences. If someone can outspeed you by a factor of 2, they can do insane things like attack and defend, or move out of range or whatever, before anyone can respond to them. You want high double digit numbers for handling a system like this, minimum, so you can fine tune things.

The importance of initiative also depends a lot on the combat system; having initiative in a game where combat typically lasts 1-3 rounds is a huge deal and going first is effectively twice as many turns as the enemy by the end of combat. Having it in a game where combat typically lasts a dozen or more rounds and the first few are spent buffing and moving into range or formation basically renders something like system one completely irrelevant- characters may as well not have initiative at all.

Lastly, system 2 works well with complications, like adjusting the delay between turns based on what you did, or what happened to you. You can have things like attacks that delay an enemy's turn, getting your next turn more quickly by taking specific actions, having buffs or debuffs influence turn rates, etc.

Final Fantasy Tactics probably had the best implementation of the second kind of system I've ever seen, as it included actions with 'charge time'- casting spells for example meant you had to target the spell in a place where you knew an enemy would be when it finished; either because the spell was fast enough to finish before they could move, their options were restricted, or you baited them into the spot. You could also use it as area denial; casting a fireball into a space you don't want the enemies to approach into with no intention of actually dealing damage. It meant there was a lot of utility for weaker, faster spells instead of just the biggest, most efficient ones. It also meant abilities that gave you a lot of chances to attack an enemy while they were casting a spell were useful as well, even if they didn't deal as much damage as other, slower or shorter ranged options. And of course this all applied not just to attacks, but support abilities as well. Misjudge things and you might heal or buff an enemy. Think ahead and you might trick the enemy into thinking it's going to kill someone but you can heal them beforehand and survive to counter attack.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Type 1 is generic round-robin that is common and easy. It works adequately with legacy PnP action economy like "standard/quick/free" actions. I think it's a good idea to have initiative rolled every round for this type of action economy, but that is also imperfect.

Type 2 with initiative being a cool-down will only work with a granular AP system. Then it's more about how quickly AP is regenerated and if unspent AP is retained. A character might get the opportunity to act more often, but it will be reliant on whether or not they have sufficient AP. This is a novel idea with potential, but it will be very difficult to design around. It might work decently with Pathfinder 2E, where each character has 3 action points that are fairly fungible. I might think some more about this.

 

[Faarbaute]

Let's say you're tasked with designing a turn-based game. Which of these initiative systems do you choose, and why? Is one objectively better than the other?

System 1:

Each character gets one turn per round. Characters act in order from highest initiative to lowest initiative.

Adam has 6 Initiative.
Bob has 8 Initiative.
Charles has 13 Initiative.
David has 10 Initiative.
Edward has 11 Initiative.

Turn order is Charles, Edward, David, Bob, Adam. This repeats predictably each round.

System 2:

There are no discreet rounds. Instead Initiative acts like a sort of cooldown; the higher a character's Initiative, the faster he can take another action.

Adam has 6 Initiative.
Bob has 8 Initiative.
Charles has 13 Initiative.
David has 10 Initiative.
Edward has 11 Initiative.

Turn order is Charles, Edward, David, Bob, Adam, Charles, Edward, David, Charles, Bob, Edward, Adam, David, Charles, Edward, Bob, Charles, David, etc...

Note that the turn order starts out the same as in System 1, but over time Charles is getting quite a few more turns than Adam.

Is there another way of handling Initiative that's better than either of these approaches?

Do you have anything particular in mind, yourself?

 

[Cancer]

With system 1 initiative is often too weak, because it only affects the first round of combat.

How about this? A character uses his initiative rating to "purchase" his place in the starting order every round, but can also use some of it to purchase other actions (such as X-com style "interruptions"/opportunity strikes, or even extra action points). Then the turn order proceeds in order by how much each character invested in starting order vs. other actions. The character with most initiative still has the upper hand, having the option to secure starting first, or diverting some points to an interruption.

Adam has 6 Initiative, uses 6 for start order
Bob has 8 Initiative, uses 5 for start order, 3 for interruption (the points might determine effectiveness of interruption, number of interruptions allowed, etc.)
Charles has 13 Initiative, uses 8 for start order, 3 for action points, 2 for extra initiative next round (which only purchases 1 initiative point next round - 1 point is lost)
David has 10 Initiative, uses 10 for start order
Edward has 11 Initiative, uses 7 for start order, 4 for interruption

Start order: David, Charles, Edward, Adam, Bob

David was able to secure starting first by investing all his points in starting order, but at the cost of having no other extra actions, such as interrupting a later starting character who attacks him (I'm assuming these 5 are enemies and not a party). Charles and Edward had strong enough initiative to start before Adam, even as he invested all points in start order, with points for other actions to spare. Now David attacks first, but might be wary to go for Edward or Bob, who have interruption points. And so on.

A downside would be that a character with low initiative and no hope of an early start would divert ALL initiative points to other actions, so this strategy would have to be penalized somehow, such as having to invest at least half of all points to start order, having investment thresholds for which actions that can be taken that round, or whatever.

 

[just]

1

 

[Butter]

Let's say you're tasked with designing a turn-based game. Which of these initiative systems do you choose, and why? Is one objectively better than the other?

System 1:

Each character gets one turn per round. Characters act in order from highest initiative to lowest initiative.

Adam has 6 Initiative.
Bob has 8 Initiative.
Charles has 13 Initiative.
David has 10 Initiative.
Edward has 11 Initiative.

Turn order is Charles, Edward, David, Bob, Adam. This repeats predictably each round.

System 2:

There are no discreet rounds. Instead Initiative acts like a sort of cooldown; the higher a character's Initiative, the faster he can take another action.

Adam has 6 Initiative.
Bob has 8 Initiative.
Charles has 13 Initiative.
David has 10 Initiative.
Edward has 11 Initiative.

Turn order is Charles, Edward, David, Bob, Adam, Charles, Edward, David, Charles, Bob, Edward, Adam, David, Charles, Edward, Bob, Charles, David, etc...

Note that the turn order starts out the same as in System 1, but over time Charles is getting quite a few more turns than Adam.

Is there another way of handling Initiative that's better than either of these approaches?

Do you have anything particular in mind, yourself?

I like the idea of System 2, but as someone else said, you'd have to tweak the Initiative values so one character isn't trivially doubling up another character on turns. It would be possible to insert rounds into such a system, and if you provided options to delay turn, perform a fast action vs regular action, interrupt, etc, then I think it would be really good.

 

[Faarbaute]

I like the idea of System 2, but as someone else said, you'd have to tweak the Initiative values so one character isn't trivially doubling up another character on turns. It would be possible to insert rounds into such a system, and if you provided options to delay turn, perform a fast action vs regular action, interrupt, etc, then I think it would be really good.

I'm partial to System 1 myself, but with a healthy dose of conditionals to avoid combat order becoming static and formulaic. I think it would play out very similar to that combined system that you suggested, only a bit more structured (which I prefer).

 

[Lhynn]

Let's say you're tasked with designing a turn-based game. Which of these initiative systems do you choose, and why? Is one objectively better than the other?
...

System 2:

There are no discreet rounds. Instead Initiative acts like a sort of cooldown; the higher a character's Initiative, the faster he can take another action.

Adam has 6 Initiative.
Bob has 8 Initiative.
Charles has 13 Initiative.
David has 10 Initiative.
Edward has 11 Initiative.

Turn order is Charles, Edward, David, Bob, Adam, Charles, Edward, David, Charles, Bob, Edward, Adam, David, Charles, Edward, Bob, Charles, David, etc...

Note that the turn order starts out the same as in System 1, but over time Charles is getting quite a few more turns than Adam.

Is there another way of handling Initiative that's better than either of these approaches?

System 2 in your description is horrific because it allows Charles (13 initiative) two or more actions per action taken by Adam (6 initiative) over the course of combat, regardless of what those actions are. A far superior system is to allot differing durations to each action, according to the varying power of these actions or to some simulationist determination of how long these actions actually take, so that the player may choose an action with longer duration over one with shorter duration but at the expense of that character having to wait longer before taking another action. Troubleshooter: Abandoned Children (2020) implemented a similar system to great effect.

The list of characters on the right side of these screenshots shows upcoming turn order, with the number of time units until that turn displayed for each of the next several characters; the number of player-controlled characters in a mission can reach double-digits, and there are often many enemies involved.

"Troubleshooter did it best" can be applied to so many systems and subsystems in turn based games.

 

[lukaszek]

"Troubleshooter did it best" can be applied to so many systems and subsystems in turn based games.

troubleshooter is microsoft marketing scheme to boost excel sales that went too far

 

[std::namespace]

you're tasked with designing a turn-based game.

im making a phase based wargame!

Which of these initiative systems do you choose, and why?

drop both, i have a movement phase and a combat phase
the player decalres moves for all his units and then declares combat
this allows for maximum tactical depth, as in widest breadth on any decision point
you decide:
1. position of units (spatial component)
2. order of attack (temporal component)
3. type of attack (hard soft counters, resists, retalations...)

...you are not just dealt some random "cards" in initiative order...

Is one objectively better than the other?

they are just different rules
but i would think looong and hard why i am designing a feedback loop, whats the point of it, cause system2 will be impossible to balance

but srsly
you have to ask yourself why there is init in your GAME rules and act accordingly
KISS in doubt

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Initiative as a cooldown gets really complicated. Without a defined AP system behind it, it gets even more difficult to theorize. I'll stick with discreet rounds for now.

Round 1: Roll initiative, sort order by highest value.
Round n+1: Roll initiative, sort order by bracket and value. Characters in bracket 1 get queue priority over bracket 2, who get priority over bracket 3.

Bracket 1 [Characters who took no action in the prior round and are not disabled, highest initiative first]
Bracket 2 [As normal, with -X for each action/reaction taken last round]
Bracket 3 [Characters who are disabled or cannot act, in order of their prior round initiative values]

This way, every round shuffles, but in a manner to where those who acted the least will sort higher, while those who acted most or were incapacitated will sort lower. This will keep a balanced action economy that is intuitive and sensible while still allowing for variation and nimble characters to reap the rewards. Characters entering combat after it has begun will be considered bracket 2. Summons (if summoning sickness is a thing) would be considered Bracket 3.

 

[J1M]

Team initiative is best. It opens more interesting strategies.

How to determine that? Probably let the computer go first every time. Or the player won't see much of what the enemies can do.

Since you seem predisposed to "system 2", use lowest initiative for first turn order and assign a time variable to every action that gets added to that to determine future turns.