Dnd 5e but with one turn per round.

[noob]

After some discussion about the rules I did think "what if there was only a single turn per round and that all the creatures acted at the same turn"
So all the creatures would move and attack and whatever simultaneously (You would indicate your intents and then it plays out afterwards)
1: how complicated would it be rule wise.
2: would it make faster or slower rounds?

[Sigreid]

I've heard of people doing this sort of thing were everyone, DM included jots down the actions they are going to take on their turn and then they all reveal them at once and resolve it all as though it happened at the same time. Seems impractical to me.

[Zhorn]

In this scenario are all attacks/movements also simultaneous?

So Player A and Monster X both attack each other
Player A causes enough damage to kill Monster X, but Monster X also causes enough damage to kill Player A
Are they both killed at the same time, or is one of them able to get their attack in first and kill the other before it has a chance to kill them?

or

Player B wants to run away from Monster Y, since one more hit will kill Player B
Does Monster Y's attack go before Player B is out of range?

or

Or Player C is being charged by Monster Z, who Player C wants to hit with a ranged attack
Does Monster Z close the distance before or after the attack from Player Z?
Does Player C make the attack normally, or at disadvantage due to melee range?

Allies doing things on the same turn wouldn't be as complicated, but opposing forces would get messy outside of a turn order.

[Avonar]

I would be slower, no doubt about it. You'd have everyone decide, then the DM has to figure out how it all comes together and narrate it. It also becomes much more subjective. Imagine trying to figure out the turns for 10 creatures all at once, who's moving, when they get there, who gets to attack first, who's in range for a fireball etc.

[noob]

In this scenario are all attacks/movements also simultaneous?

So Player A and Monster X both attack each other
Player A causes enough damage to kill Monster X, but Monster X also causes enough damage to kill Player A
Are they both killed at the same time, or is one of them able to get their attack in first and kill the other before it has a chance to kill them?

or

Player B wants to run away from Monster Y, since one more hit will kill Player B
Does Monster Y's attack go before Player B is out of range?

or

Or Player C is being charged by Monster Z, who Player C wants to hit with a ranged attack
Does Monster Z close the distance before or after the attack from Player Z?
Does Player C make the attack normally, or at disadvantage due to melee range?

Allies doing things on the same turn wouldn't be as complicated, but opposing forces would get messy outside of a turn order.

I think that you could just say "there is some inertia so you do not get interrupted(so both runs out their swords in their opponent) unless the opposing action was specifically an interruption"
So with the inertia thing monster x and player a would kill each other, for the player b and monster y situation we could just compare the move speed of the monster and of the player and see if the monster would successfully pursue.
Since movement is not teleportation for the last case it depends on whenever the monster is close enough that the time to shoot is lower or not than the time to close the gap.(probably needs gm adjudication or extra rules)
Although it is considerably easier to shoot at someone moving straight toward you so what would make sense is to give advantage to the attack if the monster did not reach melee range in time.

[HPisBS]

As much as I want to do away with the oddity that comes with pnp turns -



["Stop-motion" turns] implies that everyone is standing still when their turn starts/ends. Which, for a strategy game it's sensible, but probably not what most people want to imagine in their DnD characters.

It's the kind of thing which reminds you that, if your character starts his turn near where a galloping horseman ended their turn, these turn-based rules let you come up, pet the galloping (i.e. "dashing") horse, then move in front and around it, before slapping its other flank.


- I don't think there's a very clean or elegant way to implement simultaneous turns. At least, not with the current move/action/bonus-action/reaction system.

The best way that immediately comes to mind is to change our concrete decisions of "I move here and do this" to a set of if-then decisions like "If the necromancer stays w/in 30 ft of me, I'll move towards him and Attack, starting with a grapple. But if he moves away from me, then I'll cast Entangle at him such that I have an unimpeded path to him."

... But then, what if you suddenly lose sight of the necromancer? Does the DM let you make an insight or arcana check to see if you think he teleported away or just turned invisible? What would your if-then declaration even translate into if you think the necromancer became invisible?

There's just too many variables.


Edit:

...
Since movement is not teleportation for the last case it depends on whenever the monster is close enough that the time to shoot is lower or not than the time to close the gap.(probably needs gm adjudication or extra rules)
...

The entirety of action economy would have to be changed and broken-down into explicit seconds. 1/6 of movement speed per second. 1 action per 3 seconds. That kind of thing.

[Zhorn]

I think that you could just say "there is some inertia so you do not get interrupted(so both runs out their swords in their opponent) unless the opposing action was specifically an interruption"And to extend the question: what if one or both of the combatants had multiple attacks? If one hit is all that it would take to take down either of them, do they make ALL their attacks, or is it a one at a time deal (essentially the turn has become a subset of turns)


So with the inertia thing monster x and player a would kill each other, for the player b and monster y situation we could just compare the move speed of the monster and of the player and see if the monster would successfully pursue.
No pursuit, the two combatants are already in melee range and Player B wants to move away while Monster Y wants to attack. One of those thing will go before the other as they cannot be simultaneous. Either Player B is in range of the attack or they are not.


Since movement is not teleportation for the last case it depends on whenever the monster is close enough that the time to shoot is lower or not than the time to close the gap.(probably needs gm adjudication or extra rules)So a hierarchy of speeds will come into play (essentially a subset of turns)


Although it is considerably easier to shoot at someone moving straight toward you so what would make sense is to give advantage to the attack if the monster did not reach melee range in time.I mean you already overhauling a core component of the system, so new qualifiers could be on the table. Though as this method of advantage is not a by-RAW function from the existing system that's an 'off to the side' topic for now.

[Nefariis]

I would be slower, no doubt about it. You'd have everyone decide, then the DM has to figure out how it all comes together and narrate it. It also becomes much more subjective. Imagine trying to figure out the turns for 10 creatures all at once, who's moving, when they get there, who gets to attack first, who's in range for a fireball etc.

You'd probably still have initiative, so I would imagine it would just get resolved in the initiative's order - which could be pretty thematic.

That would also make initiative a much more crucial part of the game - if you were last in the initiative, some of your actions might become moot and lost.

[Avonar]

You'd probably still have initiative, so I would imagine it would just get resolved in the initiative's order - which could be pretty thematic.

That would also make initiative a much more crucial part of the game - if you were last in the initiative, some of your actions might become moot and lost.

And it's the last part which is the nail in the coffin for me honestly, I don't see much fun in losing something big and maybe not having the chance again just because you were low in invitiative and the monsters didn't go where you thought they might.

This is a concept that can work, but not in 5e. It would need its own system with simple combat and probably no actual distances involved to streamline it.

[noob]

And to extend the question: what if one or both of the combatants had multiple attacks? If one hit is all that it would take to take down either of them, do they make ALL their attacks, or is it a one at a time deal (essentially the turn has become a subset of turns)


No pursuit, the two combatants are already in melee range and Player B wants to move away while Monster Y wants to attack. One of those thing will go before the other as they cannot be simultaneous. Either Player B is in range of the attack or they are not.

So a hierarchy of speeds will come into play (essentially a subset of turns)

I mean you already overhauling a core component of the system, so new qualifiers could be on the table. Though as this method of advantage is not a by-RAW function from the existing system that's an 'off to the side' topic for now.

1:I would probably make them do all their attacks and potentially kill each in a single turn by triggering death saves(if the first attack dropped the opponent the next ones might trigger death saves so both are falling at once and lashing out at each other while bleeding to death) or something.

2:Attacking is not instantaneous so the monster either have to move while attacking to keep up(which is the pursuit I was mentioning) or the fleeing character needs to have a move speed slow enough to be still in range while the swing reach it(so a reach weapon helps with that for example).

[PhoenixPhyre]

And it's the last part which is the nail in the coffin for me honestly, I don't see much fun in losing something big and maybe not having the chance again just because you were low in invitiative and the monsters didn't go where you thought they might.

This is a concept that can work, but not in 5e. It would need its own system with simple combat and probably no actual distances involved to streamline it.

Yeah. More than anything, the potential for recriminations and hard feelings about how the DM resolved the "turn" (due to "lost" actions or "that's not what I'd have done there!") is tremendous. And that is very scary and unwelcome for me.

[Nefariis]

And it's the last part which is the nail in the coffin for me honestly, I don't see much fun in losing something big and maybe not having the chance again just because you were low in invitiative and the monsters didn't go where you thought they might.

This is a concept that can work, but not in 5e. It would need its own system with simple combat and probably no actual distances involved to streamline it.

It sounds like people are already playing it, so you can't say it doesn't work - we just don't currently have enough information to piece together the rules.

I think it sounds interesting and I am always for making things more thematic - I'd be curious if anyone can find documented rules for the system

[GeneralVryth]

While it's not a perfect "1 turn round" you should check out the system described here: https://www.enworld.org/threads/concurrent-initiative-variant-everybody-declares-everybody-resolves-was-simultaneous-initiative.513971/

It sounds pretty close to what you want with a reasonable framework on how to resolve it.

[Man_Over_Game]

You could talk to MaxWilson. He uses this in his games, essentially having the players act out their turns however they want, and then referring to Initiative only when timing matters. I don't do a good enough job of explaining it, but he definitely can.

[truemane]

I'm not entirely sure what the desired outcome of this is, either narratively or mechanically.

Regardless of what happens in the fiction, humans experience time linearly and so everyone would still have to take turns declaring and resolving actions. Whether you go clockwise or by age (or maybe you find some way to randomly determine who declares and resolves their actions in what order).

So this really just hands more narrative control/responsibility to the GM without significantly altering the way a combat round works. They would have to be making a lot more random one-time determinations based on the exact circumstance.

Which can work just fine. When I run Palladium games, for example, because the rules are all so janky and discordant, I take a lot more narrative control over any given combat round than I do for recent editions of DnD. If the table has some trust and some assumed good faith among the participants, it works just fine. Better than fine, sometimes, since it all has an air of chaos and unpredictability that a more measured experience can lack.

But it doesn't really change anything. A round is six seconds. Everything is already effectively happening simultaneously and being abstracted into discrete chunks.

[Joe the Rat]

There are systems that do this. The one I am most familiar with is the DC Heroes / Mayfair Exponential Game System for example did this with a "last in, first out" arrangement. After initiative is rolled, declaration of intent occurs lowest to highest.

This lets the more "with it" characters to respond to the actions of the slower characters - you are reading their intents and moves, and can react to it. Once the actions are declared, the GM adjudicates. Players can put contingencies on actions - essentially doing a readied action - if they want to hedge their bets against the higher initiative characters. Initiative is rerolled each round.

The system is primarily for small-group combat (hero vs 2 rounds of minions, hero team vs villain team, etc), and has strong rules for splitting and combining action, so you might want to look to block/swarm or auto-hit clusters for multiple minions. Turns are also resolved on a two automatic and a dice action, so there are somewhat fewer moving parts in terms of reactions. it is also more theater of the mind, which I think might be a better mode here.

Adapting to 5e actions, it should work pretty well, though you will find that initiative becomes critical, as high characters are essentially getting free reactions, and low initiative may mean you lose actions entirely if they are no longer viable. example: Character A gets initiative 10, Character B gets a 12. A's actions are to move into position and shoot Character B with his crossbow. B, seeing A preparing to shoot, takes a quick shot at A, then ducks behind a wall. B no longer has a target, and his action is wasted. If this presents an issue, you might want to allow reactions to be spent for a quick correction if a declared action is no longer possible. You can't change the basic nature of the action (make an attack with this weapon, cast this spell), but you might be allowed to change your target (at the cost of becoming a readied action - i.e. half move or losing extra attack). As this spends the reaction, that correction removes the option for opportunity attacks, etc. Might be a worthwhile inclusion. Readied actions should be allowed to jump in at any point once their declared trigger is met.

End of turn / start of /end of next turn effects should be reviewed, to make sure the start/end of the common turn doesn't nerf or break the intended impact of the effect.

Spellcasting is going to be states simply - "X starts casting a spell," then relies on Player Honor or some sort of face-down-card system to avoid switches.

Legendary Actions become even more manifestly Boss Monster Reactions. Every time someone gets to finish their sequence, the BB gets to make a responsive attack/move/eyebeam/cackle/etc.

[MaxWilson]

After some discussion about the rules I did think "what if there was only a single turn per round and that all the creatures acted at the same turn"
So all the creatures would move and attack and whatever simultaneously (You would indicate your intents and then it plays out afterwards)
1: how complicated would it be rule wise.
2: would it make faster or slower rounds?

I've been doing this for about five years now. It works great. There are some issues to consider (e.g. if a creature is knocked prone, do they get to stand up on that turn, and at what point do they do it?) and over time I've shifted the way I do things (I am less and less inclined to roll dice for initiative and more inclined to just make a DM judgment call about what would be faster--roll dice only when I can't decide). In general though it's fantastic for encouraging teamwork and player engagement, and it makes combat more chaotic, less predictable, and less exploitable via things like the Mobile feat, which to me are all feature-not-bug.

One example of something that I like but others might not is that it can lead to resource "waste", e.g. if two different wizards in the same party both declare that they are casting vision-blocking spells on the same turn (e.g. Darkness and Pyrotechnics) to maximize their chances of beating the bad guy (Beholder). I do let them abort before casting (e.g. if they roll low on initiative and the Beholder antimagics them, or the other caster goes first) but once you've committed to an action, you don't get that action back. This is one of those things that has shifted over time for me--in the past I've also tried letting people re-declare actions that have were pre-empted by other actions, such as switching an Attack action to a Fireball action if the Attack target teleports away. Even today I would still allow the Attack to be redirected to another nearby creature, "Do you want to attack the Iron Golem instead now that the lich is gone?" but I now think it's simpler to hold players and monsters to action declarations already made. If they want to declare something different, they'll have a new round coming up in a couple of minutes anyway. Combat is supposed to be chaotic, not perfectly-optimized and action-efficient.

[EggKookoo]

There are systems that do this. The one I am most familiar with is the DC Heroes / Mayfair Exponential Game System for example did this with a "last in, first out" arrangement. After initiative is rolled, declaration of intent occurs lowest to highest.

While we knew that was the intended rule, in all our years (years ago) playing DC, we never did it that way. It just feels wrong.

One thing I wish D&D did was grant some kind of actual bonus to going sooner in the round, especially the first round, aside from just getting to roll first. Like, if you make an attack against a creature that hasn't yet had its turn, you get advantage, or something along those lines. Maybe not for every round -- although that could be reserved for a class feature.

[MaxWilson]

While we knew that was the intended rule, in all our years (years ago) playing DC, we never did it that way. It just feels wrong.

One thing I wish D&D did was grant some kind of actual bonus to going sooner in the round, especially the first round, aside from just getting to roll first. Like, if you make an attack against a creature that hasn't yet had its turn, you get advantage, or something along those lines. Maybe not for every round -- although that could be reserved for a class feature.

*CoughcoughAssassincoughcough*.

Or if you're using the everybody-declares-then-everybody-acts style as suggested in the OP and used by me for the past five or six years, things like Monk stuns interdict monster attacks/prevent spells on this turn (round) as well as next turn (round) if you beat the monster's initiative. That's as more complex form of advantage than "you get advantage on your attack", but it's an advantage nonetheless.

[LudicSavant]

1: how complicated would it be rule wise.
2: would it make faster or slower rounds?

Atlas Reactor was a fantastic, unique little game that could be described as "if XCOM had great multiplayer." It had a really elegant way of handling genuinely simultaneous turns for all players in a D&D/XCOM-like game, though there are a few quirks that would make it difficult to adapt directly to a tabletop format. But a clever designer might be able to implement something close to it.

Simultaneous turns certainly made things faster than they otherwise would be for 8 players, too.

For something tabletop... hmm... not quite as D&D-like, but Seven Wonders has simultaneous turns.

I would be really interested to see a tabletop RPG make a good system for simultaneous turns. It would probably be especially beneficial to play-by-post (since initiative order + desync play is a good way to make things take forever).

[MaxWilson]

Atlas Reactor was a fantastic, unique little game that could be described as "if XCOM had great multiplayer." It had a really elegant way of handling genuinely simultaneous turns for all players in a D&D/XCOM-like game, though there are a few quirks that would make it difficult to adapt directly to a tabletop format. But a clever designer might be able to implement something close to it.

Simultaneous turns certainly made things faster than they otherwise would be for 8 players, too.

For something tabletop... hmm... not quite as D&D-like, but Seven Wonders has simultaneous turns.

I would be really interested to see a tabletop RPG make a good system for simultaneous turns. It would probably be especially beneficial to play-by-post (since initiative order + desync play is a good way to make things take forever).

In a lot of ways concurrent turns is easier for tabletop than for a competitive computer game, since you can rely on the DM to resolve corner cases, instead of hardcoding something that players may be able to exploit for advantage.

E.g. instead of "archery always goes before movement before melee", a human DM can rule that moving 5' and then stabbing someone is faster than shooting an arrow 200 yards.

Good point about play-by-post as an application for concurrent turns.

[EggKookoo]

*CoughcoughAssassincoughcough*.

I mean it's not like anyone takes that subclass anyway...


Or if you're using the everybody-declares-then-everybody-acts style as suggested in the OP and used by me for the past five or six years, things like Monk stuns interdict monster attacks/prevent spells on this turn (round) as well as next turn (round) if you beat the monster's initiative. That's as more complex form of advantage than "you get advantage on your attack", but it's an advantage nonetheless.

Yeah, there are a few ways to handle it. I don't like separating declaration from resolution. My armchair worry is that it'll cause second-guessing or some kind of choice-remorse. My experience is that it feels like too much of a speedbump, at least for my tastes and so far the tastes of the people I've played with.

I might consider implementing some kind of initiative-based bonus on my next campaign. See how it goes...

[Nefariis]

@MaxWilson - Anyway you could do a write up of your system?

basics of how it works, example play, and a few edge cases?

I think this sounds awesome and I would love to try a session at my table.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

After checking some resources online we basically tried this.
Characters who could act without moving more than 5' were allowed to act simultaneously and first. Anyone who wanted to move had to roll initiative and act after.
I would say it sped things along and added a more frenzied atmosphere to combat, which was what we were going for. I was fine that 2 combatants could down each other and thought it was more realistic (stabbing someone with a dying breath, etc). It was a bit tougher on the characters, as the baddies always were able to act as there were no rounds where characters simply won initiative and dealt with threats. This was particularly noticeable if characters were surprised, as baddies got 2 rounds off guaranteed.

I kept at it until about the end of tier 2 when the complexities of combat in 5e really started to work against the system. More reactions, lair actions, and legendary actions started to make it more unworkable. One player, who had a wizard started to get frustrated that even if he cast a defensive spell he had no chance to get it off before he was getting attacked.

That said, the "batting order" nature of 5e, particularly the ability to complete multiple activities while the rest of the group are static seems to me unrealistic, predictable, and removes the immersion in combat. If ever I could figure a way to make it work I'd love to do something like what you are suggesting again.

[MaxWilson]

@MaxWilson - Anyway you could do a write up of your system?

basics of how it works, example play, and a few edge cases?

I think this sounds awesome and I would love to try a session at my table.

Here's (https://bluishcertainty.blogspot.com/2017/01/simultaneous-initiative-in-5e.html) a writeup I did in 2017. I'll say two things about this:

(1) Since 2017 I've been rolling initiative even less than in the example at that link, because I realized that having the DM decide initiative based on what physically makes sense is the most natural way to run game fiction. Rolling initiative is just for breaking ties where the DM can't tell who would logically be faster and the order actually matters. (Can the Yeti freeze Bob before Alice kills the Yeti?)

(2) If the way I handle a particular detail like or Delay Dodging seems inelegant to you or not to your taste, feel free to ignore it. The fundamental principle is "as long as players plan their actions together, interacting with each other as much as with the DM, they won't get bored." And don't sweat it if your players want to roll their attacks and damage ahead of time, as soon as they declare them, even if they have to wait for you to decide when to actually apply that damage (or miss) to the monster.


Yeah, there are a few ways to handle it. I don't like separating declaration from resolution. My armchair worry is that it'll cause second-guessing or some kind of choice-remorse. My experience is that it feels like too much of a speedbump, at least for my tastes and so far the tastes of the people I've played with.

I might consider implementing some kind of initiative-based bonus on my next campaign. See how it goes...

It's not like you avoid choice-remorse no matter what you do--"oh, I should have done XYZ!" is not only inevitable after a combat, I'd argue that it's a feature, not a bug. It makes combat feel more like combat!

But it's true that some people try simultaneous turns and wind up not liking it. Those who do try it seem to like it about 70% of the time from what I can tell, but if you think you won't, you might be right.

[Darth Credence]

While it's not a perfect "1 turn round" you should check out the system described here: https://www.enworld.org/threads/concurrent-initiative-variant-everybody-declares-everybody-resolves-was-simultaneous-initiative.513971/

It sounds pretty close to what you want with a reasonable framework on how to resolve it.


Here's (https://bluishcertainty.blogspot.com/2017/01/simultaneous-initiative-in-5e.html) a writeup I did in 2017.

Those are the same write-up, in case anyone else thinks they are going to look at two different methods for comparison:smallbiggrin:

I have a question, based on that write up. Do most of the people here roll initiative every round? I would swear that the rules are that you do initiative once at the beginning of the combat and it stays that way, but that write up starts off with saying its a way to not do it every round. Have I been doing this wrong?

[MaxWilson]

Those are the same write-up, in case anyone else thinks they are going to look at two different methods for comparison:smallbiggrin:

I have a question, based on that write up. Do most of the people here roll initiative every round? I would swear that the rules are that you do initiative once at the beginning of the combat and it stays that way, but that write up starts off with saying its a way to not do it every round. Have I been doing this wrong?

No, that part of the context was my response to someone claiming that "everybody declares, then everybody acts" requires you to roll initiative every round as a result. Sorry for the confusion.

The 5E DMG has a Roll Every Round variant called Speed Factor Initiative, but most people use PHB Initiative, which rolls only once at the beginning, per PHB 189.

[GeneralVryth]

Those are the same write-up, in case anyone else thinks they are going to look at two different methods for comparison:smallbiggrin:

I have a question, based on that write up. Do most of the people here roll initiative every round? I would swear that the rules are that you do initiative once at the beginning of the combat and it stays that way, but that write up starts off with saying its a way to not do it every round. Have I been doing this wrong?

That's hilarious. Well it looks like you have the author in thread so I will defer to his wisdom. The one thing I will say is I loved that variant as soon as I read it, it had numerous upsides (the scenarios feeling more realistic, providing a boost to the Int stat among others), with relatively little downside (higher cognitive load in complex situations). I sadly have never played/ran a game using it, though I would seriously consider it if I ever ran a 5e game again.

[EggKookoo]

It's not like you avoid choice-remorse no matter what you do--"oh, I should have done XYZ!" is not only inevitable after a combat, I'd argue that it's a feature, not a bug. It makes combat feel more like combat!

Don't disagree. But I feel a difference between "I made a choice and I have to live with the consequence" and "I committed to a choice but haven't made it yet, but now I see it's a bad choice and I don't like that I'm forced to carry it out." The latter discourages me from future engagement in a way the former does not.

But I'll admit to not having a lot of experience with the latter. We tried it out eons ago, didn't like it, and didn't go back.

[MaxWilson]

That's hilarious. Well it looks like you have the author in thread so I will defer to his wisdom. The one thing I will say is I loved that variant as soon as I read it, it had numerous upsides (the scenarios feeling more realistic, providing a boost to the Int stat among others), with relatively little downside (higher cognitive load in complex situations). I sadly have never played/ran a game using it, though I would seriously consider it if I ever ran a 5e game again.

Yeah, I was really surprised to see players boosting Int with their ASIs, including the Moon Druid/Shadow Monk who got no mechanical benefit from Int at all except for Int saves (which he never made) and getting to declare actions later in the round.

I've since eased up a bit on the Int thing because going strictly in the same order every time felt a little too deterministic for my taste. Recently I'm playing with a variant where nobody knows anyone's actions on the other team unless they take a penalty on initiative rolls (if there are any this round) to inquire about someone else's apparent intentions. If that penalty is equal to or greater than the Int gap between them, they get to learn the answer before declaring their own action. What I like about this: arrogant genius monsters like Beholders are hard to read but not that interested in reading others (which makes them simpler to DM--I can just choose an action before the players declare), and I like the penalty for hesitation. What I don't like: it could theoretically get messy if too many characters are all interested in reading each other. Maybe I should make it not based on reading specific individuals, you just read EVERYONE who is sufficiently lower-Int than you--yeah, I should try that, it seems better.

[Selion]

After some discussion about the rules I did think "what if there was only a single turn per round and that all the creatures acted at the same turn"
So all the creatures would move and attack and whatever simultaneously (You would indicate your intents and then it plays out afterwards)
1: how complicated would it be rule wise.
2: would it make faster or slower rounds?

What If you advance in a square to hit your enemy and the enemy advances in a different square to hit you? You both walk your way without noticing the target meanwhile has changed position? The DM changes your action to fit your intentions? I find this system impractical, maybe there is some way to implement contemporary turns, but I don't think d&d is the right system to do it.

[Christopher K.]

The system you're describing sounds a lot like Greyhawk Initiative (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UAGreyhawkInitiative.pdf), from a 2017 Unearthed Arcana. Everyone declares their actions, the DM assigns a "speed die" to it, and then all the speed dice are rolled and actions resolve from lowest result to highest. I think it puts more work on the DM to package everything up into a narrative round at the end, but if you're willing to do the bookkeeping, it's a very cinematic experience in that every player takes their actions without knowing for sure how things are panning out with fellow party members until everything happens simultaneously. Speed-wise, I don't think you gain or lose much for real gameplay time once you get over the hurdle of explaining the system to your players enough times that they've gotten used to it, so I think it works better in a medium like play-by-post where you're already waiting on other players' actions to continue playing anyhow.

[Tanarii]

That's basically how D&D used to work. Although different activities were resolved in a specific order ie all ranged, then all movement, then all melee.



E.g. instead of "archery always goes before movement before melee", a human DM can rule that moving 5' and then stabbing someone is faster than shooting an arrow 200 yards.
It is?

Edit: okay yeah, first of all I misread that as 200 ft, and second of all 200 yards apparently takes about 3 seconds of flight time.

But I've always had a feeling all those "arrows arcing through the air for 6-10 seconds" movie stuff was a bit of nonsense. Turns out it was. :smallwink:

[LudicSavant]

In a lot of ways concurrent turns is easier for tabletop than for a competitive computer game, since you can rely on the DM to resolve corner cases, instead of hardcoding something that players may be able to exploit for advantage.

It's not about how easy or hard it is, it's just that the best system I've seen for it was designed for a non-tabletop context, and thus not all of its implementation translates (the bit I'd foresee wanting the most work in adaptation is the stuff related to frontliners/melee movement).

I'd love to see a similar quality system in a tabletop game. I would buy that game immediately.

[Eldariel]

I run pretty close to what Max describes (I just straight-up stole it from him when I first ran into it since I think it solves a lot more problems than it introduces); I still roll Initiative but I have everyone declare and think through their turns at the same time and then just resolve them in Initiative order where relevant (but I also allow delaying and such). I don't think separate turns really works far as game fiction goes: it creates a lot of arbitrary nonsense that really detracts from the experience for me, like being unable to run chases, unable to block movement, unable to have actions happen during an event, etc. I would like to include weapon speed and casting speed too since I feel it's an interesting dynamic and differentiates weapons (which basically don't really matter in this edition - only few have a reason to exist) but it's a bit cumbersome.

I feel reaction system is just a bad system, period; it lacks granularity and accuracy to describe "stuff happening while others do stuff" properly. It's better than what we had at the start of 3e, but it's pretty obviously just a patch trying to fix a hole the size of Eurasia in describing actions and to say it's insufficient is an understatement of the year. But of course, properly fixing it would take reworking the whole action system (which is quite bad too overall).


I also feel like simultaneous turns really speeds up combat. As I have everyone declaring at the same time and thinking at the same time, lots of thinking time is cut out and people can just do their thing. For my "old friends"-group I do run with more thinking time since they both play two characters and thus simultaneity isn't such an advantage cognitively speaking plus they enjoy strategic planning and combat so it doesn't matter that much if we spend 3 hours in a long brawl, but with my other groups I enforce shorter turns especially since they tend to have lots of players.

[follacchioso]

You could have a system similar to Diplomacy, where each player secretly writes the orders for the next turn, then they go home, plot alliances and betrayals with the other players, try to spy on each other, change the orders before the deadline, and wait until the week afterwards when the DM resolves then all simultaneously.