Okay great responses everyone. I'm aware of the realism vs speed problem and the ease of software doing it for you. I am hoping for the best "ratio" if solicited alternatives. I'll be comparing extra steps (phases) to details gained. I expect the ratios to be similar to 1:1, but who knows.
@Samwise can you give an example of the negative number ticking system you mentioned? Where are the integer values pulled from?
@Altperonsa, do you have a listing for 2e like Nifft provided?
@Kerrus your Whitewolf reverse-stack system seems useful, mainly because it seems to force players to immediately call at their actions (all of them) in rapid fire so that you can then go through and resolve the round. It seems to be a twice through system that should take double the length of time as an all-at once system like 3e. But its advantages seem to be enhanced reactions to lower initiative count actors. Can I get a more complicated example to highlight its other advantages over a forward ordered, turn by turn system?
3e often runs simpler than it is designed. There is no doubt that it's better than 1e's (thanks Nifft) with its edge cases for specific weapons, phases within phases, initiative segments rather than initiative count and special rules within actions (like secondary attacks not interrupting spells, even though the previous hit could). But I see 3e's simplicity as a red herring. When you start looking at how complicated the initiative system can actually be, it looks very different from normal play:
Example where one would benefit from a spreadsheet:An auto-rolled & sorted excel spreadsheet macro (26 rows for players #4-7 & Monsters #1-19) with the values quickly pasted into a google docs spreadsheets seems the best way to keep track of everything. The spreadsheet's columns would show:
1) multiple free actions and an immediate action (although possibly not with order preserved) then
2) initiative counts with multi-round abilities finished before a
3) "turn" on initiative count which is (move + standard) or (full round) + swift if no immediate, (or x round actions starting if no immediate action was used)
4) and lastly 1 round actions ending on initiative count.
As you can see people tend to focus on the initiative and turn rather than the other two parts. This is fine for small-scale play, but if you already have a shared spreadsheet up, you might as well be precise. At worst you have some unused clutter in the sheet.
I see why 3rd edition conglomerated the turn all at once. The number chains are a nice record, but the look intimidating as well. Here's one attempt to gain granularity without using the oldschool initiative count chains:
Initial Assumption:
A) Let's say that Orcus and Pelor duke it out. Both have many free actions available. Who gets to use their free actions first matters. Presumably initiative should be used here. B) The same thing should go for immediate actions for a caster and a raging barbarian. The immediate actions, like the free actions, can count as their own little column for initiative. With me so far? AB) If Orcus fights the raging barbarian, I would think his free actions would get to go before the Barbarians' immediate action, even though this is a RAI, grey area.
Radical Idea:
What if we apply this idea to move, standard, & swift actions (in order), so that they have their own miniature "turns"? Does the detail pay off without too much time lost?
Longhand details:Specifically, the timing and number (2?) of free then immediate actions doesn't need to change, but other actions order would matter: starting full round or x round actions / taking move actions, finishing full round actions or taking standard actions, taking swift actions and finishing x round actions. As usual you can "save up" actions so that a rogue can swift action teleport with an item before full attacking, just as he would do under the less granular, turn-all-at-once initiative system.
Explanation:
Basically if you are taking an action between two other actions (a full round action is a move + a standard action), then you need to start it as soon as the quicker action starts. When the second part of the action rolls around, you finish up. So in the case of a full round action, that would be at the end of the round. X round(s) actions finish as normal, ie. upon the start of your first action in the initiative order which translates here to your move action (assuming you decide to use your move action).
The reason that move actions occur before standard actions is, well, that's the way combat already flows. Think of it as "rewarding" uncommon move actions over more common standard actions. Likewise, that is why swift actions come after move+standard actions, which comprise a full round action but isn't used up by it. Swift actions are already king in 3e and there's no reason to make them any stronger by making them preempt move actions.
Having 1-3 quick cycles shouldn't take too much more time than a full turn, especially if players have to pay attention to more consistent involvement in combat rather than just play on their phone for a minutes at a time before stopping to plan out their turn all at once. It will be better able to "queue" any common actions they tend to use. Most monsters won't have unusual actions, so it shouldn't be too much work for the DM, especially if he has...
Since we already had a spreadsheet:
Since presumably free & immediate actions already used initiative count when relevant, all we are doing is mapping possible giving move, standard, & swift actions their own miniature "turns." What the players and DM would be deleting is the word "Free", "Move", "Standard" and "Swift" each round in said spreadsheet upon reaching that phase of the round. The columns labeling would be the same as the above, but players would now use the broken up move/standard/swift area and could keep track of some of the oddball circumstances without keeping track in their head.