Daggerheart Initiative in DnD

[Zaukrie]

We recently ran a variant of the Daggerheart initiative in our DnD session. This post on my site (which I hope to update with player thoughts soon) summarizes our thoughts. Spoiler, I'm not certain it is all that different than cyclical, given that my players took turns going so no one stole the spotlight, and I took turns with the NPCs so that I didn't team up on any one player's character.

Daggerheart Initiative in Dungeons and Dragons - Mike's Thoughts

An examination of the Daggerheart Initiative system as used in a Dungeons and Dragons gaming session.

mikesixel.com

 

[Zaukrie]

We used it again, sort of, this week.

It was a flight vs a solo, and giving the solo an almost fifty percent chance to activate as often as the characters really changed the dynamic for the better. This time the players did have the fighter keep activating, because he had the best chance to hit. No one seemed annoyed by that at all, indeed, they kept suggesting it.

100% think that this is a good way to run solos.

Basically, they rolled as normal to hit, and rolled another die to see if the solo acted or the PCs did. It added a dynamic and tension not seen when five PCs act for every action of a solo.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

For 5e Play-By-Post games that I run here, to save time, I have for years simply ditched Initiative for a "first to post, first to go" system, that also uses an "aggro"-style mechanic when it comes to bad guys.

Quite simply, the encounter is described, then the players get to act. When a player acts, if they attack an enemy, then the enemy can respond. If I, as DM, choose not to have that enemy respond (say, because I don't have the time to post a response, or because I want to use that enemy later in the round) then another PC can go, and so on.

After a few years of doing it here, I tried it out for awhile in face-to-face games. It works fine. It IS like cyclical initiative, in that we check off everyone until everyone has gone and then start a new round, but the order is more dynamic. I like it. The only reason I didn't stick with it in F2F games is because I started running more learn-to-play games and I went back to "regular" initiative so as to give the new players a more "standard" experience (and then forgot to do things differently with my regular group).

 

[FitzTheRuke]

One thing that I find surprising about both Daggerheart's Initiative system and what I describe above, is that you'd THINK that "Who wants to go?" would be slower (and full of potential arguments) when compared to "It's your turn!".

But I find in practice, that "Who wants to go" is actually faster, as the person who's turn it winds up being is generally more prepared. They want to go because they know what they want to do. Often, when it's "your turn" you might start by taking time deciding what to do. When you say "I want to go" you already know.

 

[Zaukrie]

One thing that I find surprising about both Daggerheart's Initiative system and what I describe above, is that you'd THINK that "Who wants to go?" would be slower (and full of potential arguments) when compared to "It's your turn!".

But I find in practice, that "Who wants to go" is actually faster, as the person who's turn it winds up being is generally more prepared. They want to go because they know what they want to do. Often, when it's "your turn" you might start by taking time deciding what to do. When you say "I want to go" you already know.

I have to tell people to get ready for their turn and plan WAY more in regular initiative for some reason.....

 

[John R Davis]

I like rpgs where player goes, baddie goes, et al. "Who wants to go" is a very fast way to play, and will be used in my up-coming Fantasy Heartbreaker.