So I was reading the other thread where they were talking about alternative initiative ideas, mainly dealing with group initiatives.
There were good ideas presented in the thread, and I was thinking about posting there.
But this idea is a bit different.
The problem I've always had with initiative is that it is so different from an actual combat simulation. It comes with the turn based format, which is cool, but at least in my mind sometimes doesn't feel right and messes up my immersion.
My idea was that there could be a form of group initiative, and then each side plans their turn, and then it all springs together at the same time, sort of like how combat phases play out in M:tG.
The group's initiative would be based on the highest roll on each side, then there would be three or so phases in each round:
planning phase
Damage phase
Reaction phase
The reaction phase would be for those who either roll a decided number below the high roll of the other side, or for those who ready actions, or prefer to use their turn in reaction.
In the planning phase people would use their actions, coordinate and make their attacks.
In the damage phase the successful attacks would roll damage, in order of individual initiative rolls to resolve damage. Then, if someone is dealt enough damage before they make their attach in the initiative order, they lose their attack and become unconscious, but it's more balanced.
Then reaction phase happens with group initiative, and the damage for any attacks made thenresolve damage as they make their attacks.
With this system, it feels more like a group task rather than a bunch of mini spotlights, and it's not a lot more to keep track of, but rather just another way of doing it. For structure, you could add in different role-playing phases into the model as you see fit, either once a round, or in between each combat phase in the round, etc. I've heard that that idea advertised as a way to implement more role-playing into combat encounters, at least.
It's a tough idea, it may never see play, but now at least my simulationist side has been fulfilled for the moment.
I think movement actions would 'resolve' in the damage phase as well, and that they would trigger attacks of opportunity in the reaction phase.
I don't think this would detract from narrativism or immersion in combat, but rather add to it as it promotes a more realistic advancement of time in combat, and provides more Windows for collaboration between PC's, even including the tactical scope into their roleplaying.
The only downside I see other than it being different than usual is that it might make each round slightly longer. But even then because it allows for those rounds to have the potential for more combat roleplay and interesting tactical interactions, I assert that it's negligible.
Outside opinions, thoughts or ideas?
I've seen an idea similar to this on here. I'm an advocate for turn-based, even though I think it makes combat boring. I advocate it because your idea of planning, damage and reaction is already built into it, on an individual level.
If I misread something, I'm sorry.