DungeonCraft #6: No More Initiative!

Main Ideas

Professor Dungeon Master argues that traditional initiative can be removed to make combat faster, less predictable, and more cinematic. He sees initiative as a holdover from miniature wargames: useful for deciding whose troops move first, but not essential to role-playing combat.

He criticizes conventional initiative for two main reasons:

• Realism: Fights rarely unfold as orderly turns in which one combatant acts and then waits for the other. Opponents often move and strike in overlapping exchanges. He also disputes the idea that Dexterity should determine who acts first, arguing that combat experience is more relevant to reacting quickly.
• Playability: Initiative creates a fixed “batting order” and makes players wait for their turns. Rolling to determine the order in which everyone makes further rolls also seems redundant to him.

The video briefly describes an alternative initiative system being developed by Mike Mearls. Each participant rolls a different die each round based on their chosen action—for example, a d4 for a ranged attack, d8 for melee, d12 for a spell, and d6 for movement or other actions. Lower results act first. The presenter considers this more dynamic than a fixed order, but still views it as turn-based combat.

The No-Initiative Method

1. Declare actions before the round begins.

   • Players and monsters both state what they will do.
   • Once declared, an action cannot be changed during that round.
   • The presenter suggests allowing about 60 seconds for three to four players, or up to two minutes for six to eight players.

2. Roll together.

   • Players and the DM roll the relevant attack and spell-damage dice at the same time.

3. Review the results and narrate what happens.

   • The DM sorts the rolls, determines hits and misses, applies damage, and describes the outcome.
   • The group then declares actions for the next round based on what has happened.

The presenter says that locking in actions reflects the confusion and tunnel vision of a fight: combatants are occupied with the threat in front of them and cannot freely reconsider their plans mid-action.

Handling Particular Situations

• Sneak attacks or attacks against an unaware target: These count as free attacks; the target cannot retaliate against an attacker it cannot see.
• Ranged attacks: Ranged weapons act first. If the attacker kills the target in one shot, the target’s attack roll is ignored.
• Spells: Spells are treated as ranged attacks, so they resolve automatically rather than being delayed by a separate casting-time step.
• Competing actions: When characters and enemies race to accomplish something, they roll for their respective actions; the higher result wins. For example, an archer trying to bar a door might beat charging goblins to it.
• Unprepared opponents: Against enemies caught unaware and not ready to defend themselves, players receive +4 to hit and enemies receive −4 to hit.
• Reach and positioning: Enemies can attack only characters within their range. In the example with an ogre, it can strike the nearby cleric, fighter, or paladin, but not the characters positioned behind them.

Intended Effect and Trade-Offs

The presenter wants this approach to make combat feel simultaneous, chaotic, and dangerous, while encouraging players to coordinate before rolling. He acknowledges that veteran players may resist abandoning a familiar system, while newer players may find the approach easier to accept.

He also considers the increased danger and unpredictability intentional: combat should feel frightening, and characters should remain vulnerable.

Speakers and Sources Mentioned

• Speaker: Professor Dungeon Master, the video’s narrator and presenter.
• People and works referenced: H. G. Wells and Little Wars; Gary Gygax and Chainmail; Mike Mearls; Malcolm Gladwell and Blink.
• Games and organizations referenced: Dungeons & Dragons, including its editions and official rules; Wizards of the Coast; and Dungeon World.