Discussion: "Popcorn Initiative" Rules variant

[bekeleven]

Mechanics: Roll for initiative as normal. After the first player goes, they select any member of combat who has not acted that turn. That player then takes a turn and does the same. The last player to go selects the first player to act in the next round (which can be themselves).

Obvious stuff, first take:

This makes going for high initiative a high-risk, high-reward proposition. Going first now grants a larger advantage (the ability for your entire team to act before the enemy team), whereas rolling second-highest grants no benefit over rolling lowest.
Initiative is high enough variance (at least until an optimized midlevel or a high-level character getting a healthy two digit bonus) that it might be worth it for multiple party members to focus on it despite this.
Going along with the high-variance theme, this grants an additional bonus to larger groups. If a GM rolls initiative for enemies as a group, he or she may have to revise that behavior to accommodate popcorn initiative's own quirks.
The rule can be looked at two ways. You can say that it buffs entities with low initiative, who go from always acting at the end of a round to acting at the start half the time. Or, you can look at it as buffing entities with high initiative, since winning a roll practically determines turn order.


Questions I have:

Has anybody played with this system? If so, what happened? What's your take?
Is there ever a situation where having the entire party go consecutively as early as possible isn't the optimal play? Perhaps if someone really needs two rounds uninterrupted? (How metagamey can a GM get with this? Would the enemy give your skipped member a turn before the end just because they saw that coming?)
Finally, who does the rule help the most, and who does it hurt the most?
What else did I miss?
Would you use popcorn initiative in a game you're running?

[Curmudgeon]

Any system that's more complex than picking one ordering and maintaining it is going to slow combat down. D&D combat already takes far too long, so there's no point in further consideration.

[Afgncaap5]

It's an interesting rule, and I can see it benefiting certain styles of play. I don't think I'd run it in any of my games personally, though, if for no other reason than I can't quite figure out how it works in terms of game story. It seems like the high initiative of one player sort of... eggs on other players? It'd make sense on those times that, say, a Warlord or Bard or tactically minded character went first, but I can't see it working for all other character concepts story-wise.

Another question I have, though: how do you see it affecting the initiatives of NPC enemies? Do the players get to say "The minotaur goes last!" so that they can all take a stab at it in an attempt to take it out before their turn? Theoretically, the minotaur gets a minor advantage from that; it could then basically take two turns in a row and do some serious damage. But that's really only possible if it survives until the end of the round.

Alternatively, I suppose that if the minotaur rolled higher than some player, then as soon as another PC picks a player with a lower initiative roll than the minotaur you might be able to rule something like "The minotaur is faster than your team mate, and acts before they can!" which has a bit of flair. Not sure if it's ideal (and becomes a little more complicated with multiple monsters. It could get *really* complicated if a team of monsters got to have their own Popcorn Initiative order that balanced against PCs like that, though it might turn into something a lot like the standard initiative rules if it went that route.)

I dunno. Definitely interesting. Probably not for me, but something to think about.

[Aegis013]

I've played with this option in a superheroes game. It didn't drastically change the dynamic of combats, and while it slowed things down slightly (as players would take time to consider who they would choose to have next action. Friend? or Foe?), it seemed to keep people engaged during that part, so I'd say on streamlining it's a wash.

There's definitely situations where having the entire group go as early as possible isn't the optimal play. Because if the fight will drag into round 2, you want to have the ability to early in round 2 as well. If you went early in round 1, you don't get that chance. So you and your three buds go first, the baddy doesn't go down, and he finishes the round and selects himself for first action next round. Consecutive actions can be substantial depending on what you're against. If the enemy hits hard enough that 2 attacks kills a PC, you want to try to make sure you have an action to deal with the first hit before the second one comes out.

Keep in mind, this definitely encourages metagaminess on both sides. You could consider it in-game tactical decisions but really, that tends not to be what it really is.

It helps the side with the largest number of actors the most. If you have 3 PCs and 8 foes, it's better for the foes. If you have 4 PCs and 2 foes, it's better for the PCs. More characters means more influence over turn order.

I wouldn't use it for a 3.5 game, but I'd consider it in other systems. In 3.5, it'd delegate one PC to needing to optimize initiative, rather than it being beneficial for everybody, which would change the equipment distribution in meta. That might be considered better or worse dependent on group or table, but 3.5 has enough going on to change something like that imo.

[bekeleven]

Any system that's more complex than picking one ordering and maintaining it is going to slow combat down. D&D combat already takes far too long, so there's no point in further consideration.It's a tradeoff. You have to keep track of who's gone each round, but you don't have to keep track of anything else. You can always transfer power to the person next most involved, meaning that - in theory - combat could follow a single line of action instead of swapping between vignettes. In addition, there are no delayed actions, and fewer readied actions. There are upsides.


There's definitely situations where having the entire group go as early as possible isn't the optimal play. Because if the fight will drag into round 2, you want to have the ability to early in round 2 as well. If you went early in round 1, you don't get that chance. So you and your three buds go first, the baddy doesn't go down, and he finishes the round and selects himself for first action next round. Consecutive actions can be substantial depending on what you're against. If the enemy hits hard enough that 2 attacks kills a PC, you want to try to make sure you have an action to deal with the first hit before the second one comes out.Makes sense in a boss fight. Although, if facing multiple enemies, they could still lock you out. In a 5v5, you make 4 moves then pass the football, they make 4 moves (everyone but the guy way in the back), pass off to your last guy, and unless he can kill their back guy, he's forced to pass the turn to him and they get the start of round 2 anyway. If you have actions that take 2 turns to perform, he can't do them because he's (at best) killing the last enemy holding the turn.

You're entirely right, however: In boss fights it's good for one player to hold back, assuming that player can't be 1shot. Because otherwise, he might get 2shot.

[atemu1234]

Any system that's more complex than picking one ordering and maintaining it is going to slow combat down. D&D combat already takes far too long, so there's no point in further consideration.

What's the saying? "Hours can pass in seconds, but seconds can take hours?"

[pwykersotz]

I don't like it, personally. I find that it adds another layer of complexity that the players discuss out of character and metagame. I have no problem with these things in a vacuum, but it adds significant time to combat. That said, there are several valuable ideas in Popcorn Initiative.

I've adopted a system I've built from multiple forum threads and systems.

1. Surprise round.
2. Monsters all roll initiative together, using the highest* modifier among them.
3. Players roll initiative individually.
4. Players who beat the monsters go.
5. All Monsters go.
6. All Players go...and so on.

The turn is a communal one. Each character is limited to the same number of actions they would ordinarily have. But all players or monsters who go can mix and match freely. If two people want to take a standard action, a third wants to take a move and a swift, then one of the first wants to take his move, that's fine. It encourages the party working together, allows the monsters to do the same, and if someone has a quick action they want to do while another player needs to check a book, it doesn't slow down the game.

This helps monsters and players pretty equally. There's no downsides to letting all the players/monsters act together that aren't already inherent in the system or your particular game (that I've noticed). It keeps player initiative relevant, but eliminates the clunky turn order which has caused more problems for me than it ever solved. It's also super easy to remember, and no one needs to track initiative past the initial roll.

I've been using this for almost a year now, and it's been fantastic.

*Sometimes the highest modifier is a poor plan. Depending on the situation, I might lean toward giving a +2 or +4 modifier to the next highest initiative instead, to prevent a super-fast creature from speeding up a horde of slower ones too dramatically.

[Angelmaker]

Too high alpha strike potential. If you have ever been on the receiving end of a synchonised turn ( delayed initiative ) from the badass, including action points (this was 4e ) then you'd know why this is a bad idea.

When it comes to intiative, the dragon age rg has a good system, where you can influence the initiative order by buying into it with stunts from your dragon die. I wouldn't know how to transport that towards d&d though.

[Flickerdart]

Any system that's more complex than picking one ordering and maintaining it is going to slow combat down. D&D combat already takes far too long, so there's no point in further consideration.
Agreed. Frankly, if you're going to houserule initiative, then "top initiative goes first and then we just go clockwise around the table" is probably the best rule to implement. Readied actions and whatnot are likely not a problem if your group has such a loose grasp on mechanics that you have to apply this rule just to save time.

[Zaq]

This seems like it just amplifies the rocket tag issue. As has been mentioned, it's nearly inevitable that each round will consist broadly of Team Hero and Team Monster, and whichever of those two teams goes second on Round 1 is going to go first on Round 2, effectively giving them two turns in a row. I don't see how that actually makes the game better, and in many ways, it seems to make it worse.

I have to ask, what perceived problem is this seeking to solve? Why do you feel like this rule would make the game better?

[ComaVision]

1. Surprise round.
2. Monsters all roll initiative together, using the highest* modifier among them.
3. Players roll initiative individually.
4. Players who beat the monsters go.
5. All Monsters go.
6. All Players go...and so on.



Agreed. Frankly, if you're going to houserule initiative, then "top initiative goes first and then we just go clockwise around the table" is probably the best rule to implement. Readied actions and whatnot are likely not a problem if your group has such a loose grasp on mechanics that you have to apply this rule just to save time.

The problem I have with this is that all the monsters going together can mess up the PCs bad. This is probably partially due to my PCs not being great tacticians but I'll usually break the monster initiatives into groups unless they're pushovers.

[Ashtagon]

In terms of initiative houserules, I lean towards:

PCs take 10 on initiative.

Monsters roll.

That way, the players learn a particular sequence of play for themselves, and monsters (which change every encounter anyway) shift between that fixed element of the battle.

[Flickerdart]

The problem I have with this is that all the monsters going together can mess up the PCs bad. This is probably partially due to my PCs not being great tacticians but I'll usually break the monster initiatives into groups unless they're pushovers.
Monsters going at the same time isn't a problem if you treat them as going at different times. So don't have them focus-fire on individual PCs, have them coordinate things like flanks across rounds rather than within one round, etc. This is actually better since it lets all PCs instead of only some PCs react to a multi-monster maneuver.

[Curmudgeon]

The problem I have with this is that all the monsters going together can mess up the PCs bad.
Who said all the monsters have to go together? When I DM I've already pre-rolled initiative for every monster, and they've got their own individual index cards sorted in that order. When the players roll initiative they pencil in their initiative on their own index card in the corner reserved for that purpose and hand them to me. I interleave the PC index cards in the appropriate places in the stack, then just cycle through the cards. When the next card's number increases instead of decreasing I tick off the next box on the edge of the battle mat to mark a new round. For effects lasting some number of rounds I'll draw out a line above my round-keeping grid row and label that line.

As I stated previously, D&D combat takes far too long. I do what I can to make it smoother, but having the enemies act like a hive mind is not necessary to speed things up. Enemies all acting with the same initiative tends to increase the chances of them killing individual PCs, which I don't think is good DMing.

[pwykersotz]

Who said all the monsters have to go together? When I DM I've already pre-rolled initiative for every monster, and they've got their own individual index cards sorted in that order. When the players roll initiative they pencil in their initiative on their own index card in the corner reserved for that purpose and hand them to me. I interleave the PC index cards in the appropriate places in the stack, then just cycle through the cards. When the next card's number increases instead of decreasing I tick off the next box on the edge of the battle mat to mark a new round. For effects lasting some number of rounds I'll draw out a line above my round-keeping grid row and label that line.

As I stated previously, D&D combat takes far too long. I do what I can to make it smoother, but having the enemies act like a hive mind is not necessary to speed things up. Enemies all acting with the same initiative tends to increase the chances of them killing individual PCs, which I don't think is good DMing.

Your method is awesome, but your criticism is misplaced. Going on the same initiative is very far from the enemies acting like a hive mind. Both the OP and my method are not 'bad DMing'. :smallannoyed:

[XionUnborn01]

Alternatively, I suppose that if the minotaur rolled higher than some player, then as soon as another PC picks a player with a lower initiative roll than the minotaur you might be able to rule something like "The minotaur is faster than your team mate, and acts before they can!" which has a bit of flair.

That sounds like it would be fun.

What if you only chose who goes on your team, with highest initiative always going first, and then the monsters broke in at different times. Like highest initiative is X, person who acts second counts as x-3, person who acts third is x-6, and so on, and then enemies have random initiatives.

The minotaur might have a 6+1d6 initiative or something, some new initiative setup, and then if X was 19, and the minotaur got 10, the first three people would go fine (17, 14, 11) but the fourth with an initiative of 8 goes after the minotaur, so when player three designates the fourth person to act, the minotaur suddenly charges or whatever he's wont to do that round.

[Curmudgeon]

Your method is awesome, but your criticism is misplaced. Going on the same initiative is very far from the enemies acting like a hive mind. Both the OP and my method are not 'bad DMing'. :smallannoyed:
I don't think the criticism is misplaced. My point is that monsters going on the same initiative encourages bad DMing practice. It's very reasonable, individually, to attack an enemy which has been weakened and hasn't had a chance to do something about it (get healed, hide, run away, or whatever). If the monsters all act together, those reasonable individual decisions end up with nearly the same consequences as hive mind behavior: concentrate on the weak PCs (who are going to remain weak because their turns won't come up) and kill them off.

[GreatDane]

I never felt like it added enough to the game to be worth introducing. My group likes our way of playing, and it would definitely slow us down (we have some major deliberators in the group).

The Angry DM wrote an article about popcorn initiative that might be interesting to anyone following this thread. (http://angrydm.com/2013/09/popcorn-initiative-a-great-way-to-adjust-dd-and-pathfinder-initiative-with-a-stupid-name/)

[TheIronGolem]

This seems like it will usually work out to: Team 1 goes first, team 2 goes twice, team 1 goes twice, etc...

But maybe it could be improved with a tweak: You get to pick who gets the next turn after you - but you have to pick an enemy.

[danzibr]

Agreed. Frankly, if you're going to houserule initiative, then "top initiative goes first and then we just go clockwise around the table" is probably the best rule to implement. Readied actions and whatnot are likely not a problem if your group has such a loose grasp on mechanics that you have to apply this rule just to save time.
Agreed agreed.

At my table, with 4-5 players and however many monsters, a round takes a long time. Although I write who goes when, players always seem to forget, causing brief delays to game, but which add up quickly.

My next campaign I'm planning to have people sit in order of initiative. Do all the players in order, then all the baddies (unless there's a surprise round). Video game-esque, but whatever. I don't mind if it makes combat quicker/more enjoyable.

[Psyren]

Monsters going at the same time isn't a problem if you treat them as going at different times. So don't have them focus-fire on individual PCs, have them coordinate things like flanks across rounds rather than within one round, etc. This is actually better since it lets all PCs instead of only some PCs react to a multi-monster maneuver.

But are the players going to do that? It seems to me that the PCs will focus-fire a given foe under this system, unless that foe is weak enough for one PC to handle. So why shouldn't the monsters do the same? Which gets you into the thornier questions of which monsters will be smart/cunning enough to tactically swarm a single opponent and which ones are too dumb to do so. (And Int score is no help here - there are mindless creatures, like spiders, that are definitely cunning enough to pull this off, while there are smart monsters like beholders that would be more likely to spread out and not cooperate.)


(The below is directed at nobody in particular.)


This variant also changes the dynamic of some spells. I'm at the bottom of the round; I cast a standard-action short-duration buff like True Strike, then move up to a foe, and nominate myself to go next. Thanks to Time Walking my next turn, the guy I'm about to whack (or grapple, trip, dirty trick etc.) has no chance to escape at all, and I can pile on effects like power attack or called shots that wouldn't otherwise connect to make that hit really nasty.

Spells and effects with durations also become more complicated - just reading the "Durations" section in GreatDane's link was all I needed to kill whatever lingering interest I may have had in this variant.

And then there's the metagame aspect that AngryDM glossed over. Yes, this variant encourages the party to coordinate/strategize more, and yet no thought is given to how that communication would actually take place. Can the enemies overhear you? Even if they can't (you're all using telepathy or speaking Undercommon or something), just hearing orders doesn't mean you can execute them properly; standard initiative already represents that sort of random ebb-and-flow to a combat situation. As AngryDM notes in his article: "In a panicked combat, you act when your reflexes allow and try to win. Patience usually gets you killed." Standard initiative already represents that.

TL;DR I think this adds too much complexity and metagaming for any benefits it may provide.

[KillianHawkeye]

I never felt like it added enough to the game to be worth introducing. My group likes our way of playing, and it would definitely slow us down (we have some major deliberators in the group).

The Angry DM wrote an article about popcorn initiative that might be interesting to anyone following this thread. (http://angrydm.com/2013/09/popcorn-initiative-a-great-way-to-adjust-dd-and-pathfinder-initiative-with-a-stupid-name/)

Wait, wait, wait.

WAIT.



Are you telling me this thread wasn't an April Fool's joke? That this crazy system is a real thing? That people actually use? :smallconfused:

MIND = BLOWN

[Flickerdart]

But are the players going to do that? It seems to me that the PCs will focus-fire a given foe under this system, unless that foe is weak enough for one PC to handle. So why shouldn't the monsters do the same?
The PCs are going to focus-fire, yes. That's fine - there's another encounter with more monsters waiting around the corner, while there's only one party of PCs. To me, it's completely acceptable that monsters spread the love (and have more PCs worrying about their slowly dipping hit points) without having the inverse happening to my monsters (whose psychological experiences I'm not really concerned with because they are made up in my head).


I don't think the criticism is misplaced. My point is that monsters going on the same initiative encourages bad DMing practice. It's very reasonable, individually, to attack an enemy which has been weakened and hasn't had a chance to do something about it (get healed, hide, run away, or whatever). If the monsters all act together, those reasonable individual decisions end up with nearly the same consequences as hive mind behavior: concentrate on the weak PCs (who are going to remain weak because their turns won't come up) and kill them off.
It helps to remember that all actions taken in a round are more or less happening at the same time, not one after the other. While it makes sense for a hobgoblin rogue moving right after the hobgoblin fighter to flank the PC he's engaged with and murder his face, if the fighter just closed into melee with that opponent, the rogue could have conceivably formed another objective in his mind already, and thus doesn't respond until the next round (giving everyone in the party, instead of just the guy who happens to go between the fighter and rogue's initiative counts, to do something about it - like trip the rogue, or grease the area between him and his target square).

There's no need to try and figure out what the monster would do. You're the DM, and the monsters do whatever they need to do to keep things from being nasty rocket tag (unless that's what you're after). This is similar to the whole "think of why my character would do the quest, rather than why my character would refuse" thing - the DM can decide to do anything and then justify it, and "all actions are happening at the same time so the monsters react to moves their allies make only on the following round" is a perfectly fine rationalization that the DM has the power to use or not use with no other constraints.

[danzibr]

It helps to remember that all actions taken in a round are more or less happening at the same time, not one after the other. While it makes sense for a hobgoblin rogue moving right after the hobgoblin fighter to flank the PC he's engaged with and murder his face, if the fighter just closed into melee with that opponent, the rogue could have conceivably formed another objective in his mind already, and thus doesn't respond until the next round (giving everyone in the party, instead of just the guy who happens to go between the fighter and rogue's initiative counts, to do something about it - like trip the rogue, or grease the area between him and his target square).

There's no need to try and figure out what the monster would do. You're the DM, and the monsters do whatever they need to do to keep things from being nasty rocket tag (unless that's what you're after). This is similar to the whole "think of why my character would do the quest, rather than why my character would refuse" thing - the DM can decide to do anything and then justify it, and "all actions are happening at the same time so the monsters react to moves their allies make only on the following round" is a perfectly fine rationalization that the DM has the power to use or not use with no other constraints.
Hmm, that is a fine line to walk. Not playing optimally when one side goes then the other (and I plan on having all players go, then all monsters, etc.), while reasonable from the point of view of a round being 6 seconds and whatnot, may be perceived by the players as pulling punches.

But then again, related to the second paragraph, the ultimate objective of the DM *is* to run a fun game.

[Psyren]

The PCs are going to focus-fire, yes. That's fine - there's another encounter with more monsters waiting around the corner, while there's only one party of PCs. To me, it's completely acceptable that monsters spread the love (and have more PCs worrying about their slowly dipping hit points) without having the inverse happening to my monsters (whose psychological experiences I'm not really concerned with because they are made up in my head).

Which is why the PCs should be utilizing recovery (e.g. healing and status removal) and control (to block focus-firing attempts.) They should not plan around the GM playing stupidly - the GM should run monsters consistently with their behavior, whether that means focus-firing or not. And initiative should be based on reflexes/ability to act, not weird, gamey wrestling tag-team mechanics.

There are abilities that allow allies to act in tandem like this without metagaming - abilities like White Raven Tactics or Battlemind Link. But I would not replace the entire initiative system with this under any circumstances.



But then again, related to the second paragraph, the ultimate objective of the DM *is* to run a fun game.

Part of fun though is the perception of fairness. If the whole party rolls badly for initiative and all the monsters go ahead of them, they will at least know that, hey, this is a pretty rare occurrence. But a lone monster beating your highest roller and pulling up all the other monsters with him, even the super-slow ones, just feels rotten - and can happen much more frequently.

[Flickerdart]

Which is why the PCs should be utilizing recovery (e.g. healing and status removal) and control (to block focus-firing attempts.) They should not plan around the GM playing stupidly - the GM should run monsters consistently with their behavior, whether that means focus-firing or not. And initiative should be based on reflexes/ability to act, not weird, gamey wrestling tag-team mechanics.

There are abilities that allow allies to act in tandem like this without metagaming - abilities like White Raven Tactics or Battlemind Link. But I would not replace the entire initiative system with this under any circumstances.
They're not acting stupidly, they're acting simultaneously. There's a considerable difference. If you're not willing to respect that, that's fine - nobody is telling you that your way is wrong.

[Psyren]

They're not acting stupidly, they're acting simultaneously. There's a considerable difference. If you're not willing to respect that, that's fine - nobody is telling you that your way is wrong.

It's not the simultaneous aspect that's stupid, it's acting simultaneously but choosing not to try and focus-fire one of the PCs before they can defend themselves.

With regular initiative, this can potentially happen too - but the chances of them doing so without a single PC getting to intervene are much more slim.

[Troacctid]

Focus-firing isn't always the smartest tactic--especially against an unknown foe, when you don't know who you should be focusing. You'll feel pretty silly if you all charge at the Rogue in the front and immediately get blown up by an AoE spell from the Wizard in the back.

[Psyren]

Focus-firing isn't always the smartest tactic--especially against an unknown foe, when you don't know who you should be focusing. You'll feel pretty silly if you all charge at the Rogue in the front and immediately get blown up by an AoE spell from the Wizard in the back.

Just about every Int 2 predator in nature does this. And yeah, the wizard might blow them all up when his turn comes around, but the rogue will be no less dead.

And that's before we get into smarter opponents, like Drow or Githyanki or Mindflayers, who would be able to recognize that the guy in robes is probably the main threat.

[Troacctid]

And that's before we get into smarter opponents, like Drow or Githyanki or Mindflayers, who would be able to recognize that the guy in robes is probably the main threat.

Joke's on them, the guy in robes is a Monk. :smalltongue:

The smarter opponents would have someone ready an action to disrupt spellcasting. I think that's usually a better tactic than dogpiling someone and hoping for the best. It depends on the circumstances, though.

[Psyren]

Joke's on them, the guy in robes is a Monk. :smalltongue:

The smarter opponents would have someone ready an action to disrupt spellcasting. I think that's usually a better tactic than dogpiling someone and hoping for the best. It depends on the circumstances, though.

That's the beauty of it - they can STILL have one guy ready, while having everyone else dogpile the caster, because their whole team went first.

And the really smart foes have dungeon surveillance too, so they know who really was casting spells and whatnot before engaging.

Rather than handwave these sorts of logical tactics, I'd rather let the dice/reflexes decide who does what and when.

[danzibr]

Part of fun though is the perception of fairness. If the whole party rolls badly for initiative and all the monsters go ahead of them, they will at least know that, hey, this is a pretty rare occurrence. But a lone monster beating your highest roller and pulling up all the other monsters with him, even the super-slow ones, just feels rotten - and can happen much more frequently.
Ahh, I wasn't endorsing what's written in the OP, but rather a classic RPG-like party-goes-then-baddies-go setup (unless surprised).

But... it does have the same problem. At least you won't have the same group going twice in a row.

[Doctor Awkward]

Questions I have:
Has anybody played with this system? If so, what happened? What's your take?

Nope. This is a new one on me.


Is there ever a situation where having the entire party go consecutively as early as possible isn't the optimal play?
No.


Perhaps if someone really needs two rounds uninterrupted?
Maybe if you were playing a focused summoner, and really, really needed to get off your spell without running the risk of it being interrupted. Of course, in this case you are probably taking cast time reducers (Rapid Summoning Wizard variant, Rapid Spell metamagic feat, etc.) and this rule change doesn't apply to you.


(How metagamey can a GM get with this? Would the enemy give your skipped member a turn before the end just because they saw that coming?)
Not quite sure what you are asking here, but as I mentioned earlier, there is really never a good reason to allow an opponent to act before you.


Finally, who does the rule help the most, and who does it hurt the most?
That depends on how you normally run your games. If you are the type of DM that rolls separately for each enemy you have on the field, then it helps/hurts everyone equally. If you are the type of DM that rolls once and has all enemies act on the same initiative, this is a massive boost to the players.


What else did I miss?
Well let's take a look at your design goals point by point:


•This makes going for high initiative a high-risk, high-reward proposition. Going first now grants a larger advantage (the ability for your entire team to act before the enemy team), whereas rolling second-highest grants no benefit over rolling lowest.
This is slightly incongruous, in that there is literally zero risk in having a high initiative in regular D&D play. At high enough levels of optimization, going first means that the other side doesn't get to go second.


•Initiative is high enough variance (at least until an optimized midlevel or a high-level character getting a healthy two digit bonus) that it might be worth it for multiple party members to focus on it despite this.
I can tell you exactly how it would play out if you attempted to run a game with this rule at my table. We discuss which of us would run a blitz build, who's purpose is to go first in combat to either do some damage to a flat-footed opponent, or throw out a disabling spell. Every single advantage he could get, from weapon bonuses, to Dexterity modifiers, to rerolls, he would take, to the exclusion of everything else. No one else's initiative would matter, because once he goes first, we all get to go before the enemies do.


•Going along with the high-variance theme, this grants an additional bonus to larger groups. If a GM rolls initiative for enemies as a group, he or she may have to revise that behavior to accommodate popcorn initiative's own quirks.
As I said before, if you are the sort of DM who rolls one initiative for his enemies and has them act as a group, this rule changes nothing for you. There is no advantage to not going before your opponent.


•The rule can be looked at two ways. You can say that it buffs entities with low initiative, who go from always acting at the end of a round to acting at the start half the time. Or, you can look at it as buffing entities with high initiative, since winning a roll practically determines turn order.
This change wouldn't buff any entity as an individual, it would buff the entire team. Essentially all it would do is turn the players into a single group of creatures, much like how some DM's run large groups of creatures. The players and the DM roll once for their whole group, using the highest modifier among them, whichever side wins acts first.


Would you use popcorn initiative in a game you're running?
Given the above, probably not.

Hope some of this helped.

[Kennisiou]

Skimmed the thread, so sorry if this has already been said, but this rule quickly turns into -- Flip a coin to see who goes first, the players or the enemies. Whoever goes first then takes all their actions as a group (mostly) acting in the most beneficial order (mostly because the most beneficial person to go first won't always roll to go first). Then the other group goes, in a group, acting in (mostly) the most beneficial order (mostly because, if the enemies/players have perfect knowledge of the opposing side, they make sure the least beneficial person goes first). Then the group that went second in the first round goes first in the second round, in the most beneficial order possible, and it basically looks something like

All enemies go
all allies go
all allies go
all enemies go
all enemies go
all allies go
all allies go
etc etc until combat ends.

Basically, you wind up with "allies and enemies act as a group on one initiative" with a twist that, personally, I don't think enhances the experience and actually detracts from it. Although at least it does have the benefit of it not being clear who gets the advantage, because the people who act first get to act first, but the people who go second are the first to act twice in a row.

Basically, you turn D&D initiative into a weird version of standard SRPG initiative like you see in Disgaea or X-Com or Shadowrun: Dragonfall. I'm not really a fan of this change.

[Psyren]

I can tell you exactly how it would play out if you attempted to run a game with this rule at my table. We discuss which of us would run a blitz build, who's purpose is to go first in combat to either do some damage to a flat-footed opponent, or throw out a disabling spell. Every single advantage he could get, from weapon bonuses, to Dexterity modifiers, to rerolls, he would take, to the exclusion of everything else. No one else's initiative would matter, because once he goes first, we all get to go before the enemies do.

This is exactly the sort of metagaming this system encourages. Now instead of things like Improved Initiative being attractive to everyone, they will all get piled onto one character (the dire tortoise wizard with the hummingbird familiar, e.g.) and everyone else will ignore it entirely save perhaps for their Dex score because there is no point in more than one character on the team investing thanks to this winner-takes-all gamey mechanic.

Yeah sorry, it's just a terrible idea.

[danzibr]

This is exactly the sort of metagaming this system encourages. Now instead of things like Improved Initiative being attractive to everyone, they will all get piled onto one character (the dire tortoise wizard with the hummingbird familiar, e.g.) and everyone else will ignore it entirely save perhaps for their Dex score because there is no point in more than one character on the team investing thanks to this winner-takes-all gamey mechanic.

Yeah sorry, it's just a terrible idea.
While I agree, I'd like to say this greatly depends on the group. I know mine wouldn't ``abuse'' the system like this (but my group consists of my parents, my brother and sister-in-law, and occasionally my wife).

EDIT: My major beef with it is what Kennisiou pointed out. If you did, say...

Good guys go
Bad guys go
Good guys go
Bad guys go

And so on and so forth, there isn't near the potential for a single character to be in a good position one round, then wiped out the next round.