Arneson initiative

[magremore]

Some time ago I got it in my head that Arneson allowed players the first strike. A few times over the past couple of years I have tried to search for this in FFC and online and come up empty. Closest thing I can come up with—and it’s a stretch and most definitely not where I got this possibly wrongheaded idea from—is that that's how it works in Megarry's Dungeon!  

So, can anyone help me out by either knocking this idea out of my head for good, or else confirm or otherwise make sense of it?

[Admin Pete]

I have never read or heard that anywhere, perhaps robkuntz could confirm that once things settle down from the release of the new book. You might also ask that question over at The Comeback Inn. They have done a lot of research on the topic of Dave Arneson and how he ran his game.

[robkuntz]

Arneson continued iterating his new system's architecture to the point where what it first manifested as was completely retooled and changed 1.5 years later when he unveiled (what he'd been constructing in successive design stages) to us in 1972. One should not wonder that subsystems came and went, were discarded (Chainmail) and other things tested to see if they fit into the architecture he was envisioning. The mistake that historians make (and who are not game designers) is in believing that these iterative phases are analogous with final states, thus, :"Arneson did it like this." To Arneson, just like many of us here, his system was ever evolving as long as he did not close it down to a final state (his interview answers prove that that is not the case with his design thinking and that his design philosophy was an ever progressive evolving one). There were no absolutes unless Arneson said there were. So. He could have at one point in his design stages had such a rule which may or may not have found purchase within his later design architecture as he was evolving it.

[magremore]

Admin Pete, robkuntz:

Thanks for the responses, definitely much appreciated.

Just to clarify: I'm not looking to pin down a definitive Arnesonian way of playing.

Two things behind my question: first, where the heck did I get this idea from(), as mentioned, it has been in my head for years (maybe it came from a dream, who knows); and second, I like to source stuff, not so I can make an appeal to authority to justify some way of playing to somebody (well, maybe sometimes a little, lol, I'm not perfect), but because I think it's cool to know what things were done before, no matter how ephemeral such things may have been.

Anyway, I've been playing this way with my kids for a while now. These days it's just my son and I, and as mentioned elsewhere, we're lately playing pretty loose, like characters (not monsters!) are limited to 6 hit points max—though they can gain in attack ability—and the magic system is more from Dungeon! but with sleep and roll-to-hit magic missiles. 

In general, diceless initiative—whether simultaneous or players first—is I think going to be my final landing point on the issue.

[Admin Pete]

magremore, it is great that you get to play with your son, sounds like you are teaching him not to be dogmatic about things and to be open to keep changing things as you travel along through life, constantly becoming more of who and what you want to be. As robkuntz, stated Arneson never stopped in evolving and changing his game over time. It would appear that if anything is the Arnesonian way, it would be to never move to a completely closed final state, but to continue to change as new ideas, perspectives and experiences occur. Continual growth both in our games, but more importantly in our lives is not something we should turn our back on. I think that is really when we die, when we decide that we have gone as far as we can go and stop growing. Striving to keep growing regardless of our age is a worthy goal and a lot more fun (and sometimes painful, but pain teaches) over the long hall than stagnation and stasis.

[robkuntz]

Well there you go. As Gary stated about (Arneson's) concept (paraphrase), the rules allow you: "... to create a game of simplicity or ultimate complexity." That's one of Dave's architecture's most resilient and unique features.

[robkuntz]

Apr 15, 2017 10:23:13 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

magremore , it is great that you get to play with your son, sounds like you are teaching him not to be dogmatic about things and to be open to keep changing things as you travel along through life, constantly becoming more of who and what you want to be. As robkuntz , stated Arneson never stopped in evolving and changing his game over time. It would appear that if anything is the Arnesonian way, it would be to never move to a completely closed final state, but to continue to change as new ideas, perspectives and experiences occur. Continual growth both in our games, but more importantly in our lives is not something we should turn our back on. I think that is really when we die, when we decide that we have gone as far as we can go and stop growing. Striving to keep growing regardless of our age is a worthy goal and a lot more fun (and sometimes painful, but pain teaches) over the long hall than stagnation and stasis.

Good points.  We all share something with Arneson's complex system's nature--as humans we tend to evolve to the point where we say that we do not.  Same with his system, and really for the reason that it's interconnected with an infinite conceptual realm of Fantasy.  One cannot describe infinity but they can continue through its states as best as possible given the time and inclination.  Our lives depend on the initial and sustained attitudes of each of us, much like with Dave's conception of his initial system state does.

[Deleted]

That's part of what makes it all so complex, too. Well, added to the fact that people jump to conclusions and extrapolate wildly.

Dave used bits of CHAINMAIL for part of his combat system for a while. Does that mean that Blackmoor is "derived" from CHAINMAIL? No, it means that "Dave used bits of CHAINMAIL for part of his combat system for a while." Nothing more, nothing less.

[havard]

Apr 15, 2017 12:30:59 GMT -5 @gronanofsimmerya said:

That's part of what makes it all so complex, too. Well, added to the fact that people jump to conclusions and extrapolate wildly.

Dave used bits of CHAINMAIL for part of his combat system for a while. Does that mean that Blackmoor is "derived" from CHAINMAIL? No, it means that "Dave used bits of CHAINMAIL for part of his combat system for a while." Nothing more, nothing less.

Well put!

-Havard

[Mighty Darci]

An enlightening thread! It clarifies other things said elsewhere.

[tetramorph]

hedgehobbit has some interesting things to say about initiative.

Look up his videos on youtube. He's got one on initiative and the Judges Guild approach to combat which did not use initiative.

Good stuff.

I have tried the Judges Guild approach with my group and we are starting to like it. We may leave initiative behind!

[Admin Pete]

I will have to look for those:

Here we go Hedgehobbit Videos!

I don't have time to watch them right away, but I want to. Anyone that wants to comment, don't wait on me.

[Bartholmew Quarrels]

Apr 24, 2017 19:46:33 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

I will have to look for those:

Here we go Hedgehobbit Videos!

I don't have time to watch them right away, but I want to. Anyone that wants to comment, don't wait on me.

Thanks for the link, I will take a look.

[Mighty Darci]

I will also take a look,always good to provide a link.

[aldarron]

I *think* Magremor, you got that from me. At least I think I said that somewhere, based on combat anecdotes from some of the original players and the Beyond This Point be Dragons/Dalluhn mss., which for a time I thought might have been edited by Arneson. BTPbD/Dalluhn has "The Player will always get the first chop unless he is surprized or opponent has the higher ground." (Bk II, p23). So, theoretically at least, during part of the playtest phase of D&D both Arneson and Gygax were letting the players attack first.

What Arneson was really doing, at least early on, in terms of turn sequence, is best informed by the Strategos rules the Twin Cities group were using for virtually all their wargaming. In those rules all movement is considered simultaneous.

[Admin Pete]

May 22, 2017 11:28:43 GMT -5 aldarron said:

I *think* Magremor, you got that from me. At least I think I said that somewhere, based on combat anecdotes from some of the original players and the Beyond This Point be Dragons/Dalluhn mss., which for a time I thought might have been edited by Arneson. BTPbD/Dalluhn has "The Player will always get the first chop unless he is surprized or opponent has the higher ground." (Bk II, p23). So, theoretically at least, during part of the playtest phase of D&D both Arneson and Gygax were letting the players attack first.

What Arneson was really doing, at least early on, in terms of turn sequence, is best informed by the Strategos rules the Twin Cities group were using for virtually all their wargaming. In those rules all movement is considered simultaneous.

Just curious, have you ever posted about the Strategos rules the Twin Cities group were using?

[magremore]

May 22, 2017 11:28:43 GMT -5 aldarron said:

I *think* Magremor, you got that from me. At least I think I said that somewhere, based on combat anecdotes from some of the original players and the Beyond This Point be Dragons/Dalluhn mss., which for a time I thought might have been edited by Arneson. BTPbD/Dalluhn has "The Player will always get the first chop unless he is surprized or opponent has the higher ground." (Bk II, p23). So, theoretically at least, during part of the playtest phase of D&D both Arneson and Gygax were letting the players attack first.

Yep, I’m sure you’re right. It looks like that line was quoted in a post on your blog in 2012. That fits the time frame. Wow. Thanks for replying!

[hedgehobbit]

This rule is in the early manuscript for Empire of the Petal Throne so it dates fairly early in D&D's history:

"A fighter always gets a chance to strike on any combat round in which he is involved. Thus, even if he is slain on that round, he has a chance to take a "dying blow" as he dies."*

This concept of a dying blow could explain why it wasn't that big a deal if the players always went first or the monsters did as the round was effectively simultaneous. The dying blow was kept in the printed version of EPT, which came out a few years later, even though that game used a d6 initiative system.

This passage was a light bulb moment for me as it created the idea in my head that the order in which actions were resoled on the tabletop does not have to correspond exactly to the order in which the events occur in the game world, opening up a wider variety of possible ways to narrate the events.


*[NOTE: here the term "fighter" is anyone involved in a fight as the actual class name was "Warrior"]

[Admin Pete]

May 29, 2017 15:11:52 GMT -5 hedgehobbit said:

This rule is in the early manuscript for Empire of the Petal Throne so it dates fairly early in D&D's history:

"A fighter always gets a chance to strike on any combat round in which he is involved. Thus, even if he is slain on that round, he has a chance to take a "dying blow" as he dies."*

This concept of a dying blow could explain why it wasn't that big a deal if the players always went first or the monsters did as the round was effectively simultaneous. The dying blow was kept in the printed version of EPT, which came out a few years later, even though that game used a d6 initiative system.

This passage was a light bulb moment for me as it created the idea in my head that the order in which actions were resoled on the tabletop does not have to correspond exactly to the order in which the events occur in the game world, opening up a wider variety of possible ways to narrate the events.


*[NOTE: here the term "fighter" is anyone involved in a fight as the actual class name was "Warrior"]

BitD this is how we played it, simultaneous. 

[limeodyssey]

As the size of game groups has shrunk initiative has stopped being so important I think. Also as we approach the 50 year mark for the hobby it's left its wargaming roots a long way behind. Initiative for younger players is probably not something they think about because computer "RPGs" don't make a big deal out of it usually. In computer RPGs they tend to either give you initiative or spring encounters by a contrived kind of surprise. A lot of the time though computer opponents literally stand there until you provoke them by attacking. You could model that for tabletop rules by saying that monsters will growl and threaten right up to the point an adventurer makes the first attack, meaning that the adventurers always get one lick in before general combat occurs. Then it turns into strictly back and forth between heroes and monsters.

The only computer RPG I can think of that is much more like "roll for initiative" is the Avengers facebook game, that puts characters in an initiative order. Unsurprisingly it makes initiative or "going first" absolutely critical.

[sixdemonbag]

Aug 13, 2017 18:03:03 GMT -5 limeodyssey said:

The only computer RPG I can think of that is much more like "roll for initiative" is the Avengers facebook game, that puts characters in an initiative order. Unsurprisingly it makes initiative or "going first" absolutely critical.

Check out Darkest Dungeon if you haven't already. It's turn-based with strict initiative order (and surprise round).

[aldarron]

Was re-reading a last year email from Dave Megarry, and noticed him describing the process with Arneson. He said after your characters spotted the monster, Arneson would ask what you wanted to do and give you about ten seconds to answer. If you hesitated, the monster acted first.

[True Black Raven]

Feb 24, 2018 16:34:42 GMT -5 aldarron said:

Was re-reading a last year email from Dave Megarry, and noticed him describing the process with Arneson. He said after your characters spotted the monster, Arneson would ask what you wanted to do and give you about ten seconds to answer. If you hesitated, the monster acted first.

I like this, I give an experience bonus if players are not hesitant and indecisive.

[mormonyoyoman]

I can only wish I'd heard or read this term decades ago. From now on (if I ever run a game again) my players will get a bonus to initiative if their character(s) charge into combat screaming "ARNESON INITIATIVE!!"