Bunching mooks together has been a time honored tradition since First Edition. (in fact the sample combat in the original DMG did just that.) In all my decades of running and playing you are literally the First person I know to have a cow over this.
No matter how many threads you spawn on this topic, you're not going to get this changed.
Are you against acting between that bunching of mooks though? In all my years of playing I've never heard of denying a character a delayed turn because of grouped initiatives.
I agree with the other posters though, I use the grouping of mooks but I allow delay and held actions, there is nothing wrong with this so long as the GM alows dfor it.
It seems to me that if you are having problems with it and keep generating threads then its obvouious to me your GM wont budge and you need to move on but try and convince him again by all means.
Good luck
|
Why do the creatures literally all go at the same time? Is it because they are nameless NPCs which are effectively clones of each other? That doesn't mean they are the same individual. The initiative list should look like this:Mersiel 15
Harsk 12
Goblin 9
Goblin 9
Goblin 9
Kyra 5not like this:
Mersiel 15
Harsk 12
Goblin(3) 9
Kyra 5Do PCs with the same initiative score all go at the same time? Would it be possible for the GM to delay the initiative of a monster in between two such PCs? If so, then your PC should be able to do the same.
To expand one point...
Mersiel 15Harsk 12
Goblin 9
Goblin 9
Goblin 9
Kyra 5
I like...
Mersiel 15
Harsk 12
Goblin #3 9.3
Goblin #2 9.2
Goblin #1 9.1
Kyra 5
We as GM's never remember who is goblin #1 and who is goblin #2. It usually doesn't matter. The GM will DELAY any NPC so that his troops go in an (optimized or thematically) advantageous order. This happens EVERY ROUND.
In any particular round, if the GM is using delaying actions with his NPC's, you should be able to delay and jump back into initiative whenever you see fit. Just remember, if you do, be very mindful of the extra bookwork involved for all involved.
I have been running for the last 25+ years and my main group has always rolled group initiatives for "like" mobs, no matter who was GMing. We do this for simplicities sake, and it has never been an issue.
That being said, because of the delay, AOO, readied actions of pathfinder, I would have no issue with a player wanting to interrupt my group mob with an action (going in between the basically two initiatives of the grouped mob. I do not see why this has to be an issue, and it is easily done.
This might end up splitting the group mob into two groups but unless the player is doing this just to be annoying it shouldn't be an issue, as long as it has a legitimate combat advantage for them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bunching mooks together has been a time honored tradition since First Edition. (in fact the sample combat in the original DMG did just that.) In all my decades of running and playing you are literally the First person I know to have a cow over this.
No matter how many threads you spawn on this topic, you're not going to get this changed.
The cow seems to be had not over bunching groups, but making them into impenetrable blocks.
If I am a battlefield control type I might want to let just a few of the goblins approach the party before isolating the rest. I cannot do that if my only choices are 'act before all of the goblins' or 'act after all of the goblins'.
OP, you are technically correct, but your DM seems to be using a rather common house rule, and he's perfectly within his rights to do it that way. It's not unfair.
OP, you are technically correct, but your DM seems to be using a rather common house rule, and he's perfectly within his rights to do it that way. It's not unfair.
Actually it seems that the DM is misusing a common house rule.
Is this such a re-occurring issue in your DMs game?
Is it affecting combat that much?
Does your DM give you his reasoning behind it?
This is an extremely common houserule. And while I see your point and would allow you to do it, your DM is well within his rights to houserule it, as long as you are aware of the houserule ahead of time. If so, my advice would be to stop trying to find a way to change his mind and come up with other tactics and enjoy the game.
Is this such a re-occurring issue in your DMs game?
Is it affecting combat that much?
Does your DM give you his reasoning behind it?This is an extremely common houserule. And while I see your point and would allow you to do it, your DM is well within his rights to houserule it, as long as you are aware of the houserule ahead of time. If so, my advice would be to stop trying to find a way to change his mind and come up with other tactics and enjoy the game.
So, you are okay with all of the monsters being grouped and not being able to ready to interrupt the caster?
There is a huge difference between using a shortcut of having a group of monsters act on the same initiative number and treating them all as a single creature for initiative purposes.
Is this such a re-occurring issue in your DMs game?
Is it affecting combat that much?
Does your DM give you his reasoning behind it?This is an extremely common houserule. And while I see your point and would allow you to do it, your DM is well within his rights to houserule it, as long as you are aware of the houserule ahead of time. If so, my advice would be to stop trying to find a way to change his mind and come up with other tactics and enjoy the game.
So, you are okay with all of the monsters being grouped and not being able to ready to interrupt the caster?
There is a huge difference between using a shortcut of having a group of monsters act on the same initiative number and treating them all as a single creature for initiative purposes.
Yes I am fine with rolling one initiative for grouped mobs. I have each creature in the mob complete their actions before I move onto the next. What is wrong with that?
As far as not being able to ready to interrupt the caster, not sure what you are referring too. If I want to declare one of the mobs (or a creature in the mob) as doing that, I do. Still not seeing the issue.
I do not see this coming up very often in game, or at least not causing many if any issues. As long as everyone is aware of how the DM is doing it at the start, I feel this falls in the realm of HOUSERULE and would move on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the problem scenario:
Hobgoblins all get initiative 17, GM is using "all as one uninterruptible clump" rule.
Player readies an action to interrupt the hobgoblin cleric if he tries to cast a spell.
Hobgoblin 1 goes.
Hobgoblin 2 goes.
Hobgoblin cleric goes... And the GM denies the readied action because "the hobgoblins' turn isn't interruptable, there's nowhere for your initiative to fit".
Hobgoblin 3 goes...
THAT is what this house rule does.
This is the problem scenario:
Hobgoblins all get initiative 17, GM is using "all as one uninterruptible clump" rule.
Player readies an action to interrupt the hobgoblin cleric if he tries to cast a spell.
Hobgoblin 1 goes.
Hobgoblin 2 goes.
Hobgoblin cleric goes... And the GM denies the readied action because "the hobgoblins' turn isn't interruptable, there's nowhere for your initiative to fit".
Hobgoblin 3 goes...THAT is what this house rule does.
I agree that is an issue, and that is not how I would, or do, rule it. Plus I would have a separate initiative for the hobgoblin cleric. I am not in favor of the "all as one uninterruptible clump" rule, and just because you roll one initiative doesn't mean they have to be.
But again, that being said, a DM has the right to houserule it that way. Would I like it as a player? No. Would I rule that as a DM? No.
I have played in many many many a game with houserules and have not been a fan of some of them. But here is how I solve the problem if the DM is set on playing with a certain houserule: I either accept the rule and move on, or find another group.
This is the problem scenario:
Hobgoblins all get initiative 17, GM is using "all as one uninterruptible clump" rule.
Player readies an action to interrupt the hobgoblin cleric if he tries to cast a spell.
Hobgoblin 1 goes.
Hobgoblin 2 goes.
Hobgoblin cleric goes... And the GM allows the readied action
Hobgoblin 3 goes...THAT is what this house rule does.
And the next round:
Player goes.
Hobgoblin 1 goes.
Hobgoblin 2 goes.
Hobgoblin Cleric goes.
Hobgoblin 3 goes...
Problem solved.
Negating the Delay action is not cool. Using tactics that make a battle take longer is also not cool. It can be awesome, but if it takes you 4 hours to get through what the writer considered 1 1/2 hours of content you are not only missing out yourself, but causing everyone else at the table to miss out as well.
I totally support you being able to go between enemies, even if the initiative is rolled in groups. I'm not sold on why it is a good idea very often.
This is the problem scenario:
Hobgoblins all get initiative 17, GM is using "all as one uninterruptible clump" rule.
Player readies an action to interrupt the hobgoblin cleric if he tries to cast a spell.
Hobgoblin 1 goes.
Hobgoblin 2 goes.
Hobgoblin cleric goes... And the GM allows the readied action
Hobgoblin 3 goes...THAT is what this house rule does.
And the next round:
Player goes.
Hobgoblin 1 goes.
Hobgoblin 2 goes.
Hobgoblin Cleric goes.
Hobgoblin 3 goes...Problem solved.
Your correction to my example and your follow-on round are what I would do, too. Yes, it would solve the problem, but the OP is hitting up against GMs who will not allow that readied action after hobgoblin 2.
It's a house rule, and it helps the GM manage the combat round, but it denies player choice.
This is an extremely common houserule. And while I see your point and would allow you to do it, your DM is well within his rights to houserule it, as long as you are aware of the houserule ahead of time.
Actually it's PFS, so misused houserules are objectively not within his rights.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We as GM's never remember who is goblin #1 and who is goblin #2. It usually doesn't matter. The GM will DELAY any NPC so that his troops go in an (optimized or thematically) advantageous order. This happens EVERY ROUND.
Speak for yourself. I use different minis and colored base attachments to keep track of which mini is which. And while I will play smart mooks as taking advantage of delay and ready tactics, my animals and mindless creatures don't.
This is the problem scenario:
Hobgoblins all get initiative 17, GM is using "all as one uninterruptible clump" rule.
Player readies an action to interrupt the hobgoblin cleric if he tries to cast a spell.
Hobgoblin 1 goes.
Hobgoblin 2 goes.
Hobgoblin cleric goes... And the GM denies the readied action because "the hobgoblins' turn isn't interruptable, there's nowhere for your initiative to fit".
Hobgoblin 3 goes...THAT is what this house rule does.
Yeah that's the problem, the mooks grouped together should all be the same. EG goblin fighter 1-3, the goblin cleric as he is differnt is treated as a seperate NPC and gets its own roll. He is misusing this house rule or dosnt understand the rammifications and problems it is causing, you should still be able to act regardless, if it messes things up for him then that is his fault and he needs to see this rule is not working and adjust something.
Actually it's PFS, so misused houserules are objectively not within his rights.
This is an extremely common houserule. And while I see your point and would allow you to do it, your DM is well within his rights to houserule it, as long as you are aware of the houserule ahead of time.
If the game he refers to uses PFS, then I suppose that changes things. I have never played PFS so am unsure what the exact rules for the table are (although I have heard that PFS tries to make everything as uniform as possible).
If this game is non PFS however, I still believe the DM is within his rights to houserule that, even if I don't agree with it.
Ultimately yes you can interject yourself between the enemies that have been lumped together in initiative order. Since literally each of those creatures should be acting at different times in imitative. Due to individual rolls. But the GM clumps them like that to speed up combat and to help organize the system.
As a GM I can tell you that I will not stop you from breaking apart of the clump and spreading out the creatures. But when you do this, remember that this is at the cost of the pace of the game, and the ease of the GM.
It is allowed but will probably annoy your GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Other example:
Me: init 19
Goblin mob: init 17
rest of party: init 16 or less
Goblin mob is 10 strong. They have to cross a small bridge to get to the party. I want to let 3 goblins across the bridge before shutting it down so that the rest of the party can deal with the mob piecemeal. I should be able to delay or ready to act between goblins 3 and 4 to close the bridge by whatever means.
The house rule here prevents that. The house rule is not the same as simply grouping mooks together for convenience, it has other implications.
Other example:
Me: init 19
Goblin mob: init 17
rest of party: init 16 or lessGoblin mob is 10 strong. They have to cross a small bridge to get to the party. I want to let 3 goblins across the bridge before shutting it down so that the rest of the party can deal with the mob piecemeal. I should be able to delay or ready to act between goblins 3 and 4 to close the bridge by whatever means.
The house rule here prevents that. The house rule is not the same as simply grouping mooks together for convenience, it has other implications.
I believe that most people here are agreeing with you, we understand the effects and the situations that you would want to do. However, if this is a home game (Non PFS) and the DM has already stated this is his house rule, I see very little chance/hope of you changing his mind by what other DMs/players say on here.
Talk to your DM out of game about this, list your concerns and listen to his. If he rules it to stay like he has been doing it, either play or don't. That is pretty much your only options is this. I wouldn't keep bringing it up if he says this ruling is final, that can cause bad things in game.
Sidenote - I made these statements for a NON PFS game. Since I am not familiar enough with PFS rules to qualify to comment on those. Just saying. :)
Other example:
Me: init 19
Goblin mob: init 17
rest of party: init 16 or lessGoblin mob is 10 strong. They have to cross a small bridge to get to the party. I want to let 3 goblins across the bridge before shutting it down so that the rest of the party can deal with the mob piecemeal. I should be able to delay or ready to act between goblins 3 and 4 to close the bridge by whatever means.
The house rule here prevents that. The house rule is not the same as simply grouping mooks together for convenience, it has other implications.
Not if the gm moves 1 mook at a time which is the way me and the other 3 gm's on our table do then this becomes simple. As others have said this houserule has been used by GM's for decades with no problems, not just with PF but other systems as well. Im sure if the common house rule was not working GM's would have stopped using it years ago. Me like countless others who use it have not come across any issues in the decades that we have been gming. Therefore all I can say is that the GM is doing something differnet.
There are also 2 sides to every story and unless we know exactley what the situation is like from both sides is there anyway of really knowing what is going wrong?
Also we don't seem to know if its PFS or a homegrown game as the OP seesm to ahve not really said.
The OP stated it was for PFS.
You do not houserule in PFS.
Not at all.
I have never played PFS, so my knowledge of it is very limited. So please forgive if these questions are not related to it.
Is this game you are playing in run at a venue (a local game/hobby store) that is sponsoring the game?
If it is (for those of you that know for sure), does the player have an option for challenging a rule such as this in store? Is there some sort of judging system or requirement for a DM to follow and if he doesn't does that disqualify him from running?
If the game is run at home (a home game, hehe), what options does a player have if a DM uses house rules?
If it is PFS then why is the op doing multiple threads on the same topic (another poster has said this here somewhere). Surrley if he has a genuine gripe the he should be addressing it to the venture captain or who ever else is in charge of the PFS games in his area. If it PFS he might get a better response in the society setion of the forum rather than advice. I think I have seen venture captains answer specific gripes there.
I dont think the OP has acualy said one way or the other which is why hes getting me and maybe a few other posters confused. He has mentioned PFS but I think that is to do with other groups he has been in not the one he is in now but I could be wrong.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes you do. Because players are players and they'll sometimes put you in a position where you have to make a judgement call in a grey area or area not covered. Judges are empowered to make a table call when it needs be done. They are also empowered to change the tactics of NPC's and monsters when players invalidate them.The OP stated it was for PFS.
You do not houserule in PFS.
Not at all.
No.
Neither of what you described requires a houserule.
Now, PFS has it's own specific houserules, but Judges cannot alter existing rules.
They must follow RAW.
If it is PFS then why is the op doing multiple threads on the same topic (another poster has said this here somewhere). Surrley if he has a genuine gripe the he should be addressing it to the venture captain or who ever else is in charge of the PFS games in his area. If it PFS he might get a better response in the society setion of the forum rather than advice. I think I have seen venture captains answer specific gripes there.
I dont think the OP has acualy said one way or the other which is why hes getting me and maybe a few other posters confused. He has mentioned PFS but I think that is to do with other groups he has been in not the one he is in now but I could be wrong.
So if it is PFS, he does have an option besides arguing with the DM. That is good to know.
My recommendation would be to explain in a friendly manner why the ruling the GM is using is very limiting. A character, either a PC or NPC, should be able to use delay in order to act in between two other characters. That is one of the main purposes of delay.
If that doesn't work, ask the GM what options you have to deal with the situation you described in this thread (getting swarmed.)
If this is mostly a time issue, you can recommend ways of speeding things up. I created an excel spreadsheet with macros for initiative. I simply input the names, numbers, and mods, click roll, and my initiative order is all set. If someone's initiative count is altered, I simply adjust their number and hit resort, and everything is correct again.
All that being said, we also always group mooks together, and I can't recall a single time that someone wanted to delay to split an enemy group up. If a player wanted to do that, I would allow it because it is clear that it is allowed.
Bunching mooks together has been a time honored tradition since First Edition. (in fact the sample combat in the original DMG did just that.) In all my decades of running and playing you are literally the First person I know to have a cow over this.
No matter how many threads you spawn on this topic, you're not going to get this changed.
What does it matter at all about your personal experience with noting that I am the very first person you ever heard of having a "cow" over this? I don't understand why it's relevant here, and I certainly don't understand how it invalidates anything at all.
This is an advice topic on persuading a GM to allow players to use delay properly while the clumping is an issue due to the GM believing the creatures all act LITERALLY on the same turn. Unless you agree that creatures don't act individually, and that delay doesn't work like I wrote it does, then what are you talking about by mentioning spawning threads on this topic beyond this one? I would appreciate it if you didn't harass me about other threads, regardless of how similar they are, but rather contribute to the thread in a productive manner.
OP, also consider this while you're running your crusade. GM's are now being asked to run 5 hour scenarios in 4 hour convention slots. I have never ever seen a case where this rule would make the real difference in a critical combat. GM's need every bit of time saving trick they have, if you're going have a shot of experiencing the full module within that slot.
Don't be the guy that makes this harder for no real gain.
Again, I couldn't care less about your personal experiences that you just shared, and I don't mean offense by that, but rather what you mention just isn't germane, and I also can only see it as insulting. No "crusade" is being ran, and I would appreciate it if you would stop such assumptions, including doubting that I haven't considered the efforts of GM's while running games. Perhaps you should consider how I am trying to use this advice forum to respect their time, and to find a quick and easy solution to this problem that is occurring in my area.
I ask if you could be more considerate with what you post me, and perhaps it wasn't your intention to be interpreted as such, but that is how I feel.
From my perspective, if a GM doesn't want the hassle of divided initiative, that's not unreasonable. In fact, there's a mechanic in place that he could use to resolve this pretty easily - the goblins who would go before you delay to rejoin their comrades. This could get weird with spell durations, but I don't typically see mooks casting short duration spells, so it's probably not a big deal.
If that's really a problem, it should be important enough for the GM to divide the initiative group up.
As for justifying that it's true, someone upthread copied some text about "each creature" rather than "each group" or "each team". I'd focus on that. If that's not persuasive, I agree with the kernel (if not the delivery) of LazarX's sentiment that it's probably not worth having an extended dispute over.
I got time to read the entire thread, and again I will state for clarity. My issues are in PFS, and again, I understand the difference between PFS and a homegame. I expect to go to PFS and follow RAW.
I am asking advice in quickly resolving issues in regards to delay, and this isn't to be a jerk and make things take longer for everyone. There are actual situations that matter in my games where coming off delay in between is necessary, and typically I am already delaying and suddenly new things begin to happen in the game by introducing new combatants, and I would very much like to not continue being attacked, but rather get the hell out of dodge!
I have discussed that a GM can just delay the break back into a clump to "fix" things, but thank you for mentioning it in the thread @Berinor. I have spoken with my VC about many of my issues (actually still going on), but not much progress has been gained.
Again, this isn't a thread waging war against 1 roll initiative on my part, but don't let me stop others from voicing their opinions on the matter.
I got time to read the entire thread, and again I will state for clarity. My issues are in PFS, and again, I understand the difference between PFS and a homegame. I expect to go to PFS and follow RAW.
I am asking advice in quickly resolving issues in regards to delay, and this isn't to be a jerk and make things take longer for everyone. There are actual situations that matter in my games where coming off delay in between is necessary, and typically I am already delaying and suddenly new things begin to happen in the game by introducing new combatants, and I would very much like to not continue being attacked, but rather get the hell out of dodge!
I have discussed that a GM can just delay the break back into a clump to "fix" things, but thank you for mentioning it in the thread @Berinor. I have spoken with my VC about many of my issues (actually still going on), but not much progress has been gained.
Again, this isn't a thread waging war against 1 roll initiative on my part, but don't let me stop others from voicing their opinions on the matter.
If you cannot get your VC to change your DM's mind, do you think he will? If he is adamant in his ruling, I see little recourse on your part other than moving on and accept the ruling or find another game with a different DM.
David, I have previously mentioned that I do recognize those who are lost causes, and choose not to play those GM's. The point of this thread is to get advice to quickly persuade GM's when this issue comes up in the middle of a game, unexpectedly. This is to help me beyond the lost causes already known, and get a quick fix to the issue so we can all move on and be happy without wasting time. I always try and have a discussion after the game to see what I can do, but once I feel someone is a lost cause I avoid their games, and respect their decision to run PFS homegame style with others.
Since I missed it in my browsing of the thread the first time:
In PFS a player should be allowed to make a quick argument in regards to a rule conflict, and a GM makes a quick decision then moves on.
I like the way you frame the request here. You recognize the importance of keeping the game moving and respect the GM's authority, even though you're pretty sure (and I agree) he's incorrect in this case.
I don't have any useful advice here, but maybe a reminder of what you're asking (and that you're reasonable) will help move the thread towards advice and away from rules. :-) Good luck!
So op what you really want to ask is...In a pfs game is there a correct way for me to discus a rule the gm has enforced that I don't agree with in a quick and easy way during play
So op what you really want to ask is...In a pfs game is there a correct way for me to discus a rule the gm has enforced that I don't agree with in a quick and easy way during play
That is wrong. As I initially stated, I want advice on how to persuade quickly this specific issue.
I mentioned previously a common counter argument that gets made, and no one seemed to reply to it with a suggestion on how to directly handle it. Most stuff that was suggested seems better for after game attempts, but the focusing on specific wording I will try in game if this comes up again.
|
|
Well, wording it a manner, such as "well, that's not an uncommon houserule, but unless they are mounted on each other, they still technically have separate initiatives."
The delivery is key.
Note your tone, keep eyebrows up, and use "I" more than "you".
It may seem not entirely important, but your delivery is everything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, wording it a manner, such as "well, that's not an uncommon houserule, but unless they are mounted on each other
Even in PFS, there are competing priorities.
*Start playing the session.
*Play for no more than 5 hours. (Note: home games and
online games do not necessarily have to follow this
restriction, and some conventions may run longer slots.)
When you are running a convention or in-store event
in an allotted time slot, the game needs to be far more
focused on accomplishing the goals of the scenario
and dealing with the encounters. While we certainly
encourage you to allow fun, engaging roleplaying to
take place, if your players are still playing darts at the
tavern an hour after the game started, you should prod
them into action. Though they may be having fun, they’ll
have considerably less fun later when they’re unable to
complete the scenario in the allotted time.
So, what then, to do? You're asking the GM to prioritize accuracy over speed. Even a GM like myself, who understands your interpretation of the rules, and believes it to be correct, may decide that getting the scenario done on time is more important.
And since the GM knows what's coming and you don't, you may want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Most of the time, this will slow down play a great deal for a small benefit. It might be a net loss.
OP I think your problem is very complicated and cant be reolved at the table.
There are 2 factors that are causing headaches.
1) Delay action: the rules say that you can act normally but you can't interupt anothers actions. This means that yes you could go after mook 1 but before mook 2 in the clumped roll but what do you want to do? You can't attack, you can't cast a spell and you can't block its charge as this is interupting its action. To give an answer as to how to word it is impossible as there are so many factors to take in and each situation would be different.
2) The clumping of mooks in 1 initaitve roll. All the mooks move and act as one so you cant use delay to get in amoungst them.
In order to us delay effectively you would need to go on the count after the mook has gone then you can do whatever you want to it. You cant do this as the mooks are going off as a group however so it is frustrating you I see your point of view here.
Delay depends on what you intend to do with it that round which is more than likley why you get the interupt rule quoted chapetr and verse.
There are 2 ways of dealing with this as far as I can see.
1) Ask the GM to not clump mooks so you can use delay (you still wont be able to attack etc on the same count as them though, this would need to be on the count after they have finsihed there action). Or get the GM to move the mooks one at a time and allow you to delay after he has completed the action for that mook.
2)use the ready action instead (the best option all round as you can interupt the mook so long as you state the trigger before it has moved)
To be honest you are flogging a dead horse here. You have mentioned the ruling as few times at the table and off and have voiced your views, you have brought it up with the VC too. If you bring this up at the table again all that will happend is that the GM and players will get frustrated..oh not this AGAIN!!. It will turn in to a big dabate and ruin the game for everyone.
Your personal solution I think for this post is to let it lie (it won't change) or talk to the GM post or pregame.
Oh and use ready action instead of delay. The problem here is both of you are correct and it is his houserule of clumping mooks that is the real problem stopping you form delaying properly. Until this is resloved you will keep coming up with the same probelm with teh same counter argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to address it, do so AT THE VERY BEGINNING. The part where you sit down at the table and say "hey, I'm <insert name>".
"Can I request that each monster have a separate initiative roll? It's important to my character. I'm happy to help you track initiative in return, I brought my handy initiative board to be a team player."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you allow the GM to set up for combat with grouping, and you don't mention it, you already lost this argument.
Because it really -is- impolite to interrupt the GM, who's trying to simultaneously manage an entire game, run a combat, tell a story, and watch the clock.
"Can you drop everything you're doing, backtrack, and re-do the initiative count in a more complicated, time-consuming way to suit my preference? My feelings on the matter are more important than what you and the other players are trying to do here"
At least, that's how I see it.
Anonymous visitor has made 2 very good points here. I think that is your answer. Maybe as you sit at the table etc ask the GM how he will run his initatives. Then you can judge whether you need to alter tactics and not use delay or ask him as Anonymous says in his post to change it so you can. That way you will know what to expect and how to deal with it before it happens. Do not argue and try not to anatogonise, if the GM says no then leave it and get on with the game.
Above all do not bring it up in game if you can help it in anyway unless you can think of a way of being polite, quick, to the point and ready to move on if the GM says no, do not antagonise and argue the point across (this will be difficult to for us to say what to say as it will depend on the circumsatnces at the table and what you are trying to do).
Uhhh, regardless if it's in the middle of the game, before, or after, I am looking for advice to convince delay does indeed work. I appreciate the other advice, but that is not what I asked for at all, and I'm confused why others keep focusing everything on something else especially as if that is what I came here for.
I need delay to work, and by raw, it should work. It might be difficult at some times for a gm to let delay happen like this, but in most cases they already clumped initiative. Simply delay back into your clump next round.
Please, advice on quickly explaining how delay does in fact go I'm between mooks.