Terence1331's page

people can take your identity and then take the fact you pointed out the date and games you mentioned and narrow down who I am, and I assure you people at local games have already done it. I'm not upset, but I just ask you to be more mindful with exactly what information you give out in the future.

That assumes that you use warhorn to sign up or that you were not signed up for another table and switched over.

Terrance, does this imply you normally prep your init rolls so they're separate, or even normally roll individually? I was under the impression this was common practice to roll in groups.

I don't do init rolls ahead of time. I do them at the table. I wish to spend the majority of my prep time getting the maps right. I feel that is a better use of my time as drawing maps in game can take up a lot of time.

Also, I feel like a jerk for saying this but it is Terence not Terrance

In the future I would hope you could keep people anonymous from real life, and the boards, at least concerning me.

You are anonymous. I did not identify you. All I did was identify myself as the GM in question. Nobody knows your name and they do not know if you live local to me or if you were just passing through and dropped in for a game.

For the GM's, why not just pre-roll the initiatives of your monsters during prep?

For the games in question last Saturday they were both season 4. I did not know ahead of time if the party was going to be play high or low tier (there was a difference in the init). Also i did not know if the table was going to have 4, 5, or 6 players so some groups of monsters would be eliminated at the 4 person table. So there is four possible combinations of monster inits for each encounter. So I made the call to do them at the table, grouping like monsters together.

Terence Barton wrote:

Mark Stratton wrote:

Is he a player in your games?

Yes. He was at my table for two games last Saturday. We had this discussion both in game and (at great length) after the game.

I wonder how this tactic worked for him.

Nobody died in either game and I don't think I even knocked anyone unconscious. There was not a single combat that made it past three rounds and the PC's pretty much walked though everything. In the first one the major bad guy did not even get a turn.

Terence Barton wrote:

I expect that he thought that everyone was going to agree with him. Then the next time he talked to me he would use this thread as proof that I was running my game wrong and I force me to run it the way he wants it run.

Is he a player in your games?

Yes. He was at my table for two games last Saturday. We had this discussion both in game and (at great length) after the game.

You have said you don't want this to be an advice thread, but what else are we supposed to do with it? Do you just want people to post a list of anecdotal stories attempting to demonstrate when grouped initiative was/not a success? Do you just want to create a list of self-admitted "cheaters"? Please help us understand your intentions.

I expect that he thought that everyone was going to agree with him. Then the next time he talked to me he would use this thread as proof that I was running my game wrong and I force me to run it the way he wants it run.