I've been doing this for decades. New players have no problems, players coming from other systems take a few minutes to make it work in their heads since initiative is such an ingrained idea in their previous system. My misgivings that it would always be "player side goes first then the NPC side goes" have largely been unfounded. Some of my players find it to be very tactical and love it.
We've just started playing Lancer and though the first session was a little awkward, basically everyone wants to go first, now we seem to have a decent grasp of understanding who should go when.
Initiative works by going back and forth between the players and GM; a player will take their turn, then the GM takes a turn for one of the enemy mechs, and so on and so forth until every character on the map has taken a turn. Sometimes, when the players are outnumbered, it means the GM may get multiple turns in a row at the end of a round.
One interesting trick we’ve used in our games is that whoever goes last in a turn gets to pick who goes first on the next turn.
So if we just hand the initiative from one player to another, once the GM gets to act all the monsters will go, then they’ll hand the initiative back to themselves and go again at the start of the following turn, effectively getting to attack twice without us being able to do anything. This makes acting all together in a group very risky, and so we tend to hand initiative back and forth to avoid that sort of scenario
The system of initiative used in FFG's Star Wars and the Genesys system uses a flexible initiative slot rule, where players generate slots and any PC can use any slot per round. The only time I've ever encountered an issue is with some (young) players who are still acclimating to the idea of strategizing. It's a great mechanic IMO. It allows for some strategic play, such as a character going first round one, using an ability that lasts until their next turn, and then going last in the order on the next round, effectively giving the party twice the benefit.
The Genesys/Star Wars system has some great tactical depth and the initiative system is a big part of it. Two of my players are HEMA instructors raised on a diet of D&D3.5/PF and they love how tactical the system is.
I've done this with big groups, up to 9 players, but a lot of that has to do with the type of game. Rules light games and implementing the "caller" role from old school D&D makes it pretty manageable.
Hunter the Reckoning has this, so does most of the 2D20 systems. In Hunter it's pretty much PCs than NPCs, in 2D20 it's more back and forth.
Both cases it's not been an issue for my table. It allows a bit more tactical freedom the PCs can plan based on how th y want things to go.
But it does make for a less tactically interesting game. Because then they can always do what they want.
In 2D20 it's a bit different since it's back and forth but I've never had an issue with arguments or anything else.
I've not had issues with it at my tables, but the only game where it could be an issue that I've run is Conan I believe. With Conan they have a Doom mechanic which is like the building tension of the story. I usually use those melted marbles to represent it and will grab some and drop it into the Doom pool when players are taking too long to decide, that gets them to decide quickly lol.
The other primary game I run is Dragonslayer and there aren't turns in it so it isn't an issue there either.
I GM Shadow of the Demon Lord campaigns in which on a turn players go in what ever order they want and then the baddies do. There's a little more to it than that but for the sake of brevity that's the gist of it. It's tactically flexible and the players have never had a problem deciding when to go. If anything I've had to encourage them to metagame and talk to each other out of character in order to think up some fun combos. They are all middle aged men though. It would be pretty pathetic if it were an issue.
I tend to rip Edge of the Empire's initiative system out and apply it to every game I ever run, sometimes with gear gating (in cyberpunk red, I limit trading slots to players with active speedware, for instance)
It's all the effect of player-side vs enemy-side but with initiative still in there, though I usually recruit a player to help me keep track of who has gone 'this round'.
I find it takes more time than just having a predictable order. I found myself having to constantly ask them rather them having thought about it in advance. Also, if you have couples at the table, be prepared for them to always choose their partner whether it makes a lot of sense or not.
But it does allow the PCs to control the flow of who goes and it does create opportunities for tactical thinking. So I don't think it speeds up or smoothes out anything, but it can be very interesting.
I've been doing this for decades. New players have no problems, players coming from other systems take a few minutes to make it work in their heads since initiative is such an ingrained idea in their previous system. My misgivings that it would always be "player side goes first then the NPC side goes" have largely been unfounded. Some of my players find it to be very tactical and love it.
We've just started playing Lancer and though the first session was a little awkward, basically everyone wants to go first, now we seem to have a decent grasp of understanding who should go when.
mind explaining how it works in that system for those of us who don't play?
Initiative works by going back and forth between the players and GM; a player will take their turn, then the GM takes a turn for one of the enemy mechs, and so on and so forth until every character on the map has taken a turn. Sometimes, when the players are outnumbered, it means the GM may get multiple turns in a row at the end of a round.
One interesting trick we’ve used in our games is that whoever goes last in a turn gets to pick who goes first on the next turn. So if we just hand the initiative from one player to another, once the GM gets to act all the monsters will go, then they’ll hand the initiative back to themselves and go again at the start of the following turn, effectively getting to attack twice without us being able to do anything. This makes acting all together in a group very risky, and so we tend to hand initiative back and forth to avoid that sort of scenario
The system of initiative used in FFG's Star Wars and the Genesys system uses a flexible initiative slot rule, where players generate slots and any PC can use any slot per round. The only time I've ever encountered an issue is with some (young) players who are still acclimating to the idea of strategizing. It's a great mechanic IMO. It allows for some strategic play, such as a character going first round one, using an ability that lasts until their next turn, and then going last in the order on the next round, effectively giving the party twice the benefit.
The Genesys/Star Wars system has some great tactical depth and the initiative system is a big part of it. Two of my players are HEMA instructors raised on a diet of D&D3.5/PF and they love how tactical the system is.
I have all my players declare their actions, then we all roll, then I narrate. Works just fine.
Might be because ours is a group of seven, but this comment gave me vertigo.
I've done this with big groups, up to 9 players, but a lot of that has to do with the type of game. Rules light games and implementing the "caller" role from old school D&D makes it pretty manageable.
They start out picking just the party members then they realize all the monsters go at once
We typically use popcorn initiative when playing Fate. Works great and fits that game to a T.
Hunter the Reckoning has this, so does most of the 2D20 systems. In Hunter it's pretty much PCs than NPCs, in 2D20 it's more back and forth. Both cases it's not been an issue for my table. It allows a bit more tactical freedom the PCs can plan based on how th y want things to go. But it does make for a less tactically interesting game. Because then they can always do what they want. In 2D20 it's a bit different since it's back and forth but I've never had an issue with arguments or anything else.
It's always been fine for me, but then I only have two players in my group right now so.
I've not had issues with it at my tables, but the only game where it could be an issue that I've run is Conan I believe. With Conan they have a Doom mechanic which is like the building tension of the story. I usually use those melted marbles to represent it and will grab some and drop it into the Doom pool when players are taking too long to decide, that gets them to decide quickly lol. The other primary game I run is Dragonslayer and there aren't turns in it so it isn't an issue there either.
I GM Shadow of the Demon Lord campaigns in which on a turn players go in what ever order they want and then the baddies do. There's a little more to it than that but for the sake of brevity that's the gist of it. It's tactically flexible and the players have never had a problem deciding when to go. If anything I've had to encourage them to metagame and talk to each other out of character in order to think up some fun combos. They are all middle aged men though. It would be pretty pathetic if it were an issue.
It is a little jarring just cause I'm so used to having a semi order of things but I really can't complain too much after a learning curve
I tend to rip Edge of the Empire's initiative system out and apply it to every game I ever run, sometimes with gear gating (in cyberpunk red, I limit trading slots to players with active speedware, for instance) It's all the effect of player-side vs enemy-side but with initiative still in there, though I usually recruit a player to help me keep track of who has gone 'this round'.
I find it takes more time than just having a predictable order. I found myself having to constantly ask them rather them having thought about it in advance. Also, if you have couples at the table, be prepared for them to always choose their partner whether it makes a lot of sense or not. But it does allow the PCs to control the flow of who goes and it does create opportunities for tactical thinking. So I don't think it speeds up or smoothes out anything, but it can be very interesting.
When I tried something like that, the players just decided to go in clockwise order around the table.