How would the game break if one used a "single initiative" system?
 

Complete n00b trying to teach myself Melee here.

I was wondering the reasoning behind the double initiative system: Both sides move based on the initiative roll, and then individuals act based on Dex order.

HOW would the game break if one used a "single initiative" system instead? That is, one in which combatants move and immediately act. For the sake of discussion, the order could be

a) Determined by a die roll (side initiative),
b) Determined by Dex (individual initiative), or
c) A combination of the two, such as 1d6+DEX.

I am asking HOW the game would break rather than WHETHER it would break because I presume that there has to be a deep reason why it works the way it does. But having read the rules and tried a bit of arena self-play, I cannot see any obvious reason!

(Edit: Notice I am asking about basic Melee rather than Melee+Wizard or full-blown TFT. Answers about the full system are welcome, but I'd like to understand how Melee works on its own first.)

Re: How would the game break if one used a "single initiative" system?
 

Movement Allowance can be high enough to let a figure move around an enemy and attack them from the side or rear if you allow movement and immediate action instead of breaking the turn into phases as per RAW. This would have a huge impact on the game.

Re: How would the game break if one used a "single initiative" system?
 

Thanks for the reply. If I understand correctly, this is already possible against an opponent with a lower Dex when going second in initiative.

It's true that a single initiative system would allow to do this even against an opponent with a higher Dex, and independently of initiative.

So I guess it would happen about four times as often, right? Ballparking twice for "any Dex" and twice again for "any initiative". It does sound like a substantial impact.

Re: How would the game break if one used a "single initiative" system?
 

Part of the reason is that TFT lacks the concept of actions which may trigger an immediate counter-action (like AoO). Realistically, no one can just run around behind an opponent w/o drawing some kind of response. TFT cleverly side-steps the issue, however, by forcing all figures to move then act during distinct phases of the engagement framework.

The dual 'initiative' is there because the split turn structure means that something may occur during movement that effects a figure's readiness to perform their action (i.e. changing their adjDX). It also gives figures an opportunity to change what their action might have been to one more reflective of everyone's final position on the battlefield.

Personally, though, I prefer the more fluid dynamics provided by some type of 'interrupt' mechanic.

Re: How would the game break if one used a "single initiative" system?
 

In the late 70s when I learned TFT, I must have missed the part about "then fight in DX order." Or I probably forgot that part.
Anyway, what our players ended up doing was:

1. Group Initiative: Roll d6 to see which side chooses to move first.
2. Movement of both sides, all of one side, then all of the other as determined from above.
3. Magic and Missile Weapons go next. Determine that order by adjDX. (We did this first as it got rid of any non-adjacent hex actions.)
4. Then using Igo/Ugo, the player who won the initiative roll chooses one of his characters (not a magic or missile character) and does his action.
5. Then the other player chooses one of his characters and does his action.
6. This back and forth continues until all characters have done their stuff.

We played TFT where others weren't allowed to see your stats. You could tell members of your party what the stats were, but the enemy didn't know.

The enemy could make a guess as to what your ST was by how heavy was your weapon.
But they didn't know your DX or adjDX. They could assume that since you had a medium shield, you were at least -2DX, but not what your DX started at.

They (your opponent) only found out when you rolled your DX.

This proved to be another tactical consideration because if you had a high DX and ST character and you selected a lower ST weapon and no armor, you could surprise your opponent, who might have underestimated your character. Of course, once this surprise was used, the next time that character came up, his adjDX was known.

I had since relearned the rules.

Re: How would the game break if one used a "single initiative" system?
 

Well heck, I like all that. It must not have been a game-breaker or you'd have noticed right away and thought "wait, this can't be right!"

If I ever get back to active play (it's been a long time) I actually don't want to use the original turn sequence myself. I found the whole "this entire side moves, then that entire side moves" while no one can take any action was becoming a little tiresome.

Re: How would the game break if one used a "single initiative" system?
 

I think all the pieces are there for a 1-stage 'I go/you go' system, but be aware you'll end up at something closer to GURPS than TFT (I think how you determine who goes first is a minor detail). It is easy to see how it would work, in broad brushstrokes, but undoing the canonical system (move first, act second) will require a ton of fine adjustments because so much of TFT's combat system is predicated on the idea that the actions you can make are limited by the movements you and your foe made. The end result will also depend strongly on how you treat 'engagement' - if you leave it as-is, game play will feel more like TFT; if you drop or change it, game play will be more like GURPS.

Re: How would the game break if one used a "single initiative" system?
 

I've worked on those particular problems a lot, mostly about 35 years ago when I tried writing my own RPG. After a 30 year hiatus from the project I dusted it off a couple years ago and picked up where I left off, but I think the combat rules will be sound; changing the turn sequence indeed has a big ripple effect on everything else necessitating a lot of adjustments resulting in something you wouldn't think of as TFT anymore. For example, no movement phase and no roll for initiative. It's a fun challenge to work on.

I never played GURPS -- I only read the first book ("Man To Man") one time when it first appeared around '84 (?), deciding I much preferred TFT and never looked at GURPS again. What I know of it beyond that one glance at the first book decades ago has all come from posts and comments in this very forum, and from those it does sound like it has points in common with what I've been writing.

Re: How would the game break if one used a "single initiative" system?
 

Ages ago I tried a house rule where DX order was determined by each character rolling 2 dice and adding it to their DX. The resulting value would determine action order. This was done after all movement was complete.

I did not change the movement initiative.

I liked the affect it had on making attack sequence a bit more random. High DX characters couldn't just assume they would have initiative. It also meant someone with high DX was not guaranteed a chance to avoid combat. Despite it being a positive result, the negative was not worth it. That is, combat slowed down quite a bit. In normal ITL it does not take long for the players to know the DX order, but this added a bit of confusion. Or with the right group, this could have been a good change.

If you are looking to modify initiatives, maybe you may find this useful.

Re: How would the game break if one used a "single initiative" system?
 

My group played TFT last night for the first time in about 30 years. As we worked through getting back up to speed on the rules I was immediately reminded of some of the frustrations of high DX sort of trumping everything else. So I agree injecting some randomness into the initiative could be beneficial, but would, as you also pointed out, slow the game quite a bit for any non-trivial combats.

When I last played 30 years ago I felt a strong desire for a software tool that would take care this aspect of rolling and turn tracking in our battle royales. It seems like it would be pretty easy to create such a tool now, assuming one doesn't already exist.

Re: How would the game break if one used a "single initiative" system?
 

One good thing about the RAW dynamic adjDX action order is that it creates meaningful choices. If, for instance, you have a high-DX fencer who wants to aim a shrewd thrust for higher damage, he must suffer a DX penalty that could well allow the enemy to strike first.

Re: How would the game break if one used a "single initiative" system?
 

I concur. I really don't have any problems with RAW when it comes to action order. The choices available create their own randomness in the action phase.

Re: How would the game break if one used a "single initiative" system?
 

Probably the best thing about playing TFT RAW is that you are presented with a lot of situational choices that influence outcomes pretty strongly, so there is definitely a skill to playing well. Combine that with the generally balanced power level of the game, and high degree of vulnerability everyone/thing has, and it means your success or failure depends more on you and less on some brute force advantage your character's stats or equipment might provide. A lot of the ways you might imagine changing game tend to dilute that strength, I think.