What's wrong with having them as us 'can we roll initiative?'
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You definitely influenced the outcome by asking them to roll initiative. I wouldn't even say that they metagamed by attacking, because as has already been mentioned, you basically told them that combat has begun.
Scenario 1:
DM says: "In a flash of smoke and fire, a great demon appears before you wielding a sword."
Players hear: A demon has appeared and it has its sword drawn.
Scenario 2:
DM says: "In a flash of smoke and fire, a great demon appears before you wielding a sword. Roll initiative."
Players hear: A demon has appeared with its sword drawn, and it is moving to attack us.
What you had is scenario 2, and the players reacted to being told that they were being attacked by attacking back. It's not metagaming, but rather a case of miscommunication.
Here's the skinny...
My group's currently exploring Baphomet's corner of the abyss. They made it to his capital city and were summoned by a Nalfeshnee. When they entered it's throne room, it teleported in, wielding a golden sword, at which point I requested initiative. They killed it before it got to act, at which point I had to laugh, because the demon's intent was to help them. Most of the group complained that I shouldn't have requested initiative when the demon had no intent on fighting, to which I responded that an initiative request is not character knowledge and should not dictate their actions.
The group is manhandling the AP, so I thought it a good time to make a point, which I also happened to think was pretty funny. What do you guys think? Was I reasonable, or do they have good reason to complain?
They have every reason to complain. You were wrong. Initiative isn't called until hostilities are initiated, meaning 'intent to fight has not only been declared, but enacted'. Until someone says 'I'm swinging' and starts the fight, no initiative.
You were also wrong in that the demon could have used free actions to tell the party its intentions before anybody did anything. Maybe wouldn't have slowed them down, but I suspect you didn't even try.
This was 100% pure Gygaxian 'gotcha' bullcrap. Bad GM, no doughnut.
The fact that you went in initiative order, allowing them to kill it, and letting him wait until they had gone, kinda makes me think you wanted them to kill it.It didn't matter much. A single attack threw the chance for anything else out the window. There's no way it was going to forgive their attack and continue to offer aid. It's a high ranking c-e demon, full of pride, rage and hate. An insult is enough to provoke it's rage for sure, let alone an attack.
Only if that's how you want it to operate. You have control over its actions. TOTAL control. Its personality is whatever you want it to be. If you wanted it to not attack back, then it wouldn't have attacked back.
How was the Nalfeshnee described as wielding the golden sword ? There's a big difference between having it out but point down and having it raised overhead, just as there's a big difference between a soldier with his rifle raised to his shoulder or held with the muzzle pointed at the floor.
Why did it not speak as a free action (can be done even when not your turn) saying something like "Attack if you must, but I would speak with your first."
edit:ninja'd on the free action speaking bit.
The thing is, GMs can metagame too.
Calling for initiative when there is no competition for the first action, or asking the players to arrange their minis in the absence of other information, those are meta-game actions.
Forcing a result in the fiction based on the rules alone is every bit as reprehensible as acting on monster vulnerabilities your PC wouldn't know.
This was 100% pure Gygaxian 'gotcha' bullcrap. Bad GM, no doughnut.
I think this example would have transgressed Mr. Gygax's mandate for GM impartiality. I could be wrong, but he seemed like more of an in-character gotcha type.
The difference is in the GM's intent.
By his own admission, the GM here was trying to elicit a behavior that would ultimately be a mistake. He lied through rules arbitration.
Now, this guy seems somewhat self-aware, and I applaud that. Hopefully he sees the error now. But if I were a player at that table, it would undermine his credibility as an impartial GM.
Asking for initiative is like holding up a neon sign that reads 'fight now'.
I find that a lot (maybe even most) players think this way, which is something I don't really get because neither I nor any of my group think this way. Yeah, rolling for initiative is how almost all encounters (including combats) start, but not every encounter has to be a combat. Is the really that prevalent of a "kill first ask questions later" mentality?
What should yave happened is that you described the demon teleporting in, and then ask 'what do you do?
In these situations I find that all the characters, including the demon, usually want to do something. Since the encounter may very well escalate to a combat the order in which these actions happen can be critically important. I cannot fathom a reason why anyone wouldn't use a system designed for resolving actions in order in a situation when you need to resolve actions in order.
Speaking is a free action that can occur at anytime so the demon should've said, "HEY WAIT, STOP! I'M TRYING TO HELP YOU" when the players first started attacking it.
|
Asking for initiative is like holding up a neon sign that reads 'fight now'.I find that a lot (maybe even most) players think this way, which is something I don't really get because neither I nor any of my group think this way. Yeah, rolling for initiative is how almost all encounters (including combats) start, but not every encounter has to be a combat. Is the really that prevalent of a "kill first ask questions later" mentality?
...
In these situations I find that all the characters, including the demon, usually want to do something. Since the encounter may very well escalate to a combat the order in which these actions happen can be critically important. I cannot fathom a reason why anyone wouldn't use a system designed for resolving actions in order in a situation when you need to resolve actions in order.
In many (most?) groups, noncombat encounters don't start with rolling for initiative. I personally find it's rarely important out of combat to determine the order in which actions happen. For example, when my group was woken up by a group of unfriendly but not yet violent orcs, the fighter announces that she's putting on her armour, the ninja ducks into tall grass to hide, and the summoner addresses the lead orc. The net result was in the leader telling the summoner to gather his allies for parley. but losing track of the ninja. The only question of timing was whether the fighter was able to actually put on the armour and that wasn't an issue of order of actions so much as one of total elapsed time (the fighter, and only the fighter, made a dex check). In fact, when the cleric announced he wanted to cast a spell, I asked "are you rolling for initiative?" as a way of reminding him that in this situation spellcasting would be seen as an aggressive action and would prompt a combat encounter. The cleric decided against casting the spell - my group generally prefers the diplomatic solution.
It's fine to use initiative for non-combat encounters, but in that case you need to make sure that the group does not expect that initiative is only for combat encounters, and thus indicates combat is beginning.
You have to know that asking for initiative in and of itself sets up expectations in the players. And frankly, you banked on that.
Yes I did, lol. But in my experience, players almost always do the same thing. In fact, what happened illustrates exactly that. And I do use initiative out of combat. I don't find circumstances that permit it often, but when I do, I use it. I didn't realize until last night though that it's only meant when combat has already started. Also, thank you for your respectful response.
Mindless undead can be evil in Pathfinder... somehow.
This reminds me of a similar 'making a point' situation I read where a GM said, "You're walking along in the wilderness..." and put all the character miniatures on a map. They all immediately started casting buff spells on themselves. Then, nothing happened, because there was no enemy, and the GM asked why they cast the spells. This was to remind them not to metagame. The players accepted this lesson.
It's actually reasonable to roll initiative in a potential combat situation. A dangerous creature has appeared. Do you attack it or stop and talk? If you stop and talk, you lose initiative. But if you're not doing a 'gotcha', you should probably say, "It hasn't taken any aggressive action... yet." Because 'roll initiative' implies that it has.
EXACTLY!! Ty sir
You description the demon telepoting in while holding a weapon is an in-character reason for attacking on it's own. You asking for an initiative roll is further showing hostile intent on the part of the demon, as initiative is rolled when a creature is making a hostile action to start combat.
If you didn't want the PCs to attack the demon, you should have had the demon appear with the weapon sheathed, and had it talk to them instead of just "roll for initiative".
You forced the combat because you were trying to screw over your players, and they are right to be upset.
Um, no, it's written in the AP that he poofs in wielding his sword. To me, that DOES seem threatening, and I think they handled it appropriately. I didn't "not want them to attack", I couldn't have cared less what they did. In fact, I actually thought it was more reasonable to kill it, from a characters perspective anyway.
What lesson? That the GM will fake you out sometimes?
That you shouldn't be relying on the GM's actions to determine your own, you should be using in game knowledge for that.
We assume initiative means combat because it almost always does
But we shouldn't, because it's not character knowledge.
I think the thing is ... cues. A lot of players, when you say "initiative," they hear "buttwhoop time." I would give my players a secondary cue. "Roll for initiative." After they do that, I'd look at the first player and ask for a Sense Motive roll (with a ridiculously low DC) that would yield a little info: "The demon does not seem to be preparing for combat." If I'm asking for skill rolls despite rolling initiative, that's my players' cue that something is up.
Ah, that is a good idea.
This is what you did.
HA! Thats a great comparison. However, I think it was more like I strolled in dressed as a pizza guy, then after they got their plates, told them I just got off work
Devil's (OP's) advocate here,
I use initiative occasionally for circumstances that don't involve direct combat. It's usually a "combat-like" scenario, mind you. (such as, pick-pocket rolls, reactions to said rolls, fleeing, who got to speak/act first in a RP situation where time is of the essence, etc).
From that point of view, I don't think the OP was wrong, but I have questions:
-What was the point of having them roll initiative?
-What did you hope to accomplish?
-Was there a pressing issue where fractions of seconds mattered, IE was there something that warranted the use of initiative(outside of traditional combat)?
You definitely influenced the outcome by asking them to roll initiative. I wouldn't even say that they metagamed by attacking, because as has already been mentioned, you basically told them that combat has begun.What you had is scenario 2, and the players reacted to being told that they were being attacked by attacking back. It's not metagaming, but rather a case of miscommunication.
Basically and literally are two different things, in this case, far apart. I didn't tell them combat had started, and I certanly didn't tell them they were being attacked. I do realize now though that the rules state only to roll initiative at start of combat, which would mean to them as a player that combat must have started. This is a bad spot in the rules though. I've noticed several people here disagree with that, but popular opinion holds no weight in a court of logic, so it doesn't really matter. But none the less, those are the rules, which I get now.
Only if that's how you want it to operate. You have control over its actions. TOTAL control. Its personality is whatever you want it to be. If you wanted it to not attack back, then it wouldn't have attacked back.
That is how I wanted to operate, which there is no problem with
How was the Nalfeshnee described as wielding the golden sword ? There's a big difference between having it out but point down and having it raised overhead, just as there's a big difference between a soldier with his rifle raised to his shoulder or held with the muzzle pointed at the floor.
I showed them the pic in the AP.
The difference is in the GM's intent.
By his own admission, the GM here was trying to elicit a behavior that would ultimately be a mistake. He lied through rules arbitration.
Now, this guy seems somewhat self-aware, and I applaud that. Hopefully he sees the error now. But if I were a player at that table, it would undermine his credibility as an impartial GM.
I did no such thing. I described and handled the matter as unbiasedly as I could, just as I have tried to do here in this post. I just didn't realize that initiative was only supposed to be used at basically the exact moment after combat has started, before anyone has actually gotten to act.
Speaking is a free action that can occur at anytime so the demon should've said, "HEY WAIT, STOP! I'M TRYING TO HELP YOU" when the players first started attacking it.
lol, no demon lord will ever say that if im the one GM'ing it.
I currently play in a group where we sometimes don't instantly murder things when initiative is rolled. If we're not sure the thing in front of us is going to attack we generally just ready actions.
That said, it's not really the intent of the rules (as has been pointed out already, I won't harp). Also, I find that most Paizo materials don't really emphasize not murdering things. We've run a handful of modules recently, and while there's occasionally the option to not murder someone, it's never really been optimal. If you're running an AP then your players are being encouraged to murder things.
Honestly, the only thing that makes the whole situation a dick move is saying to the players afterwards "Nya ha! Got ya! He was supposed to be helpful, but I tricked you into murdering him!"
lol, excellent. That's exactly how I saw it too, and exactly where I was hoping to place my dick move. The rest was meant to be reasonable. But, I will refrain from it in the future since I've come to a new understanding on the RAW here
Devil's (OP's) advocate here,
I use initiative occasionally for circumstances that don't involve direct combat. It's usually a "combat-like" scenario, mind you. (such as, pick-pocket rolls, reactions to said rolls, fleeing, who got to speak/act first in a RP situation where time is of the essence, etc).
From that point of view, I don't think the OP was wrong, but I have questions:
-What was the point of having them roll initiative?
-What did you hope to accomplish?
-Was there a pressing issue where fractions of seconds mattered, IE was there something that warranted the use of initiative(outside of traditional combat)?
They have had no challenge the entire AP because they immediately pounce with full power on everything, which I don't think an initiative roll should be a green light to do, so I tried to give them a reason to think about their actions. I mean, they just slaughtered a balor in a single round without taking even 1 point of damage, and it hadn't even looked at them yet, let alone threatened them (aside from balors ALWAYS being threatening)
Granted, AP's really do pretty much greenlight that type of behavior, so it's not all their fault. But still, I'm hoping this event will cause them to roleplay the situation rather than pounce every time they hear the term "initiative" as a player.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the big problem here is that you're not viewing the turn based rules as the representation of real time combat. The expectation should be that creatures are acting the entire time during combat and going by turns is only a means to keep track of the actions happening during said combat. To view it otherwise is basically the "no, no, no, jimmy. You can't draw your sword now, it's the ogre's turn. He gets to come over and stab you first, then if you're still alive, you can draw your sword and strike him." version, which is kind of ridiculous. So to ask them to roll for initiative, without stating that it isn't a combat, or special initiative, is to say "your character is in a fight, what do you do?"
I don't even mind using initiative for special actions, or when characters are performing differing tasks at the same time, but these are houserules, and can't be sprung on people mid game without an explanation.
Also, I think you need to rethink your stance on metagaming. All character knowledge is derived from out of character knowledge. Characters don't know anything, they're not real. Everything your character knows is what you decide he knows, usually through past experience, or knowledge skills, or class abilities. Everything your character reacts to should be a result of what you as a GM are describing in world, but certain technical aspects have implications to what is happening with characters. If you ask for a reflex save, the character just reacted to something, or failed to do so. If you ask for a knowledge check, the character has noticed something, and is trying to remember anything he's ever learned relating to this thing. You ask for initiative, you're in a fight. Just because there's number and systems that the player knows, doesn't mean the character shouldn't, at times, also know what's up.
Honestly, trying to imply situations through rules implications, only to declare that your player's deductions are false so you can chastise them for making deductions at all is adversarial, counter-productive and mean spirited. Those are not qualities you should look to embody as a GM. If metagaming is becoming a serious problem, talk to your players out of game, few players that I've met aren't willing to tone down these tendencies, and the ones who won't, you don't want to play with anyway.
From the sounds of things, it really just sounds like the frustration of having highly optimized characters manhandling an AP and deciding to put the screws to them anyway you can. Don't get me wrong, I feel ya. It's not fun when you can't do anything to challenge PCs, or create a fun or memorable combat, but this isn't the way to fix it.
For example, when my group was woken up by a group of unfriendly but not yet violent orcs...
This particular statement really stuck out to me.
Your party just got woken up by some unfriendly orcs. The party really has no way of knowing if the only reason the orcs aren't yet violent is that they rolled low for initiative. If the Fighter's already starting to put on armour, then he's determined that combat isn't imminent and the time when initiative might have mattered had long passed.Those first few moments after waking should be tense because the party doesn't know what's going to happen. If the GM announces "Don't worry guys, these orcs aren't going to attack," he's spoiling the moment. If the PCs can easily meta-game "combat-encounter"/"non-combat-encounter" it really makes no difference if the GM announces it directly or indirectly.
It's fine to use initiative for non-combat encounters, but in that case you need to make sure that the group does not expect that initiative is only for combat encounters, and thus indicates combat is beginning.
I totally agree with this. A GM should try to keep player expectations in line with his game. I just personally think "initiative"="combat" makes just as much sense as "armed NPCs"="combat
|
|
Devil's (OP's) advocate here,
I use initiative occasionally for circumstances that don't involve direct combat. It's usually a "combat-like" scenario, mind you. (such as, pick-pocket rolls, reactions to said rolls, fleeing, who got to speak/act first in a RP situation where time is of the essence, etc).
From that point of view, I don't think the OP was wrong, but I have questions:
-What was the point of having them roll initiative?
-What did you hope to accomplish?
-Was there a pressing issue where fractions of seconds mattered, IE was there something that warranted the use of initiative(outside of traditional combat)?They have had no challenge the entire AP because they immediately pounce with full power on everything, which I don't think an initiative roll should be a green light to do, so I tried to give them a reason to think about their actions. I mean, they just slaughtered a balor in a single round without taking even 1 point of damage, and it hadn't even looked at them yet, let alone threatened them (aside from balors ALWAYS being threatening)
Granted, AP's really do pretty much greenlight that type of behavior, so it's not all their fault. But still, I'm hoping this event will cause them to roleplay the situation rather than pounce every time they hear the term "initiative" as a player.
As an aside ... If your players are breezing through an Adventure Path like this and the battles are so non-challenging, I'm kind of wondering if maybe thier characters are somewhat over powered relative to the assumed power level of the AP and/or maybe you might not be running the monsters at full deadly mode.
I've played in a number of APs and never had the kind of cake walk you seem to be experiecing. Just a thought ...
You don't tell people to roll initiative unless there's a fight.
You just don't.
Strongly disagree.
Initiative is for any time it's important to track activities round-by-round.
That doesn't necessarily mean combat. A good DM works with his players to establish that. Yes, most of the time calling for initiative means there's a fight. But I make a point of using initiative in other circumstances. For instance, if a PC is bleeding out, I maintain initiative. Also, if movement/climbing/order-of-events matters, I use initiative to track things.
My players know that sometimes initiative is because there's a ticking bomb somewhere, or there are round-per-level spells in action, or any of a number of other things are going on.
Speaking is a free action that can be taken outside of your turn. It never hurts to talk before killing. In fact, that should be a party's default behaviour.
What if that demon wasn't a demon?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a bit of an issue with how this encounter is written.
If the AP was written with the if the demon was actually trying to communicate with the player characters, but with the Nalfeshnee just "popping in" in front of the players with weapon drawn then there is a serious problem with the AP.
In a warzone, if one soldier wants to communicate peacefully with a member of the enemy forces, he is aware that they will normally shoot first and ask questions later. So he waves a white flag, raises his hands, shouts out that he is unarmed, and so forth. Even then he is still taking a risk. He's going to do everything possible to communicate to the enemy that he is not a threat, before they start taking shots at him, in fact, generally before they can even see him.
The Abyss IS a warzone. Even the demons are not friends with one another.
A Nalfeshnee has an INT of 23 and a WIS of 22; these values represent superhuman intelligence and wisdom. It should understand these principles and be doing whatever it takes to communicate this notion before the players have the chance to attack. Having a sword drawn is not a good way to do this.
If the adventure is written that the Nalfeshnee teleported in with the intent of talking to the players, it should have known better than to do so right in front of the players with sword drawn. In my mind that act represents an INT/WIS of about 7, not 22-23. The Nalfeshnee is doing something really stupid when it should be hyper-intelligent.
The Nalfeshnee could just have easily teleported nearby, then summoned a vrock to deliver a scrap of parchment with a written message on it. Even if the party kills the vrock they will still get the message. The message would include some kind of signal the party could make if they were willing to talk. Then the Nalfeshnee could come out with "hands up" if the players gave the signal.
Some players would STILL kill the Nalfeshnee at this stage but then it's on them.
This is exactly the kind of thing you ought to change as a GM.
I think the big problem here is that you're not viewing the turn based rules as the representation of real time combat. The expectation should be that creatures are acting the entire time during combat and going by turns is only a means to keep track of the actions happening during said combat. To view it otherwise is basically the "no, no, no, jimmy. You can't draw your sword now, it's the ogre's turn. He gets to come over and stab you first, then if you're still alive, you can draw your sword and strike him." version, which is kind of ridiculous. So to ask them to roll for initiative, without stating that it isn't a combat, or special initiative, is to say "your character is in a fight, what do you do?"
I don't even mind using initiative for special actions, or when characters are performing differing tasks at the same time, but these are houserules, and can't be sprung on people mid game without an explanation.
Also, I think you need to rethink your stance on metagaming. All character knowledge is derived from out of character knowledge. Characters don't know anything, they're not real. Everything your character knows is what you decide he knows, usually through past experience, or knowledge skills, or class abilities. Everything your character reacts to should be a result of what you as a GM are describing in world, but certain technical aspects have implications to what is happening with characters. If you ask for a reflex save, the character just reacted to something, or failed to do so. If you ask for a knowledge check, the character has noticed something, and is trying to remember anything he's ever learned relating to this thing. You ask for initiative, you're in a fight. Just because there's number and systems that the player knows, doesn't mean the character shouldn't, at times, also know what's up.
Honestly, trying to imply situations through rules implications, only to declare that your player's deductions are false so you can chastise them for making deductions at all is adversarial,...
Paragraph 1- I dont know why you'd think that. I do view combat that way, I just didn't think the demon would care to talk after being attacked.
Paragraph 2- I'd have to agree with you there.
Paragraph 3- I couldn't disagree more. Character knowledge is derived only from knowledge the character has access to, not all the knowledge the player has access to. Obviously characters don't know anything because they're not real, but for that matter, none of its real, and your just sitting there rolling dice for no reason. Everything your character knows is not just what what you decide he knows. You can read an adventure path ahead of time and know the answer to everything. Thats doesn't mean your character instantly has access to all that info. I'm not the one that needs to rethink my stance on metagaming here. I do agree with you though that characters should react to what the Gm describes in the world though, but that contradicts the other things you've said. I did not describe a fight, and initiative rolls aren't something that exist in the game world.
Also, I didn't chastise my players. I thought it was played correctly, but I had to laugh because it was for the wrong reason.
Your party just got woken up by some unfriendly orcs. The party really has no way of knowing if the only reason the orcs aren't yet violent is that they rolled low for initiative. If the Fighter's already starting to put on armour, then he's determined that combat isn't imminent and the time when initiative might have mattered had long passed.
Those first few moments after waking should be tense because the party doesn't know what's going to happen. If the GM announces "Don't worry guys, these orcs aren't going to attack," he's spoiling the moment. If the PCs can easily meta-game "combat-encounter"/"non-combat-encounter" it really makes no difference if the GM announces it directly or indirectly.
Totally agree.
It's not metagaming if the GM uses "roll for initiative" as shorthand for "the other party is obviously beginning combat...
I don't. It does turn out to result in a fight a lot, especially when running AP's, but it should not define an encounter as one to me. However, I realize now that the rules do say it actually does equal combat, which has changed my stance a bit. Now I just think its a crappy rule for the reasons Quantum described above, but I was still wrong.
This reminds me of a similar 'making a point' situation I read where a GM said, "You're walking along in the wilderness..." and put all the character miniatures on a map. They all immediately started casting buff spells on themselves. Then, nothing happened, because there was no enemy, and the GM asked why they cast the spells. This was to remind them not to metagame. The players accepted this lesson.What lesson? That the GM will fake you out sometimes?
That you should wait to cast buff spells until it's too late?
That you should wait to cast buff spells until your characters have reason to think there's a threat.
The group were in the habit of metagaming their buffing which was giving them an unfair advantage. "It's early in the afternoon, you're walking beside a stream, and you've just found a suitable place to cross..." "I cast Haste." "I cast Prayer." "I begin summoning." "I drink a potion of Bull's Strength."
Here's the skinny...
My group's currently exploring Baphomet's corner of the abyss. They made it to his capital city and were summoned by a Nalfeshnee. When they entered it's throne room, it teleported in, wielding a golden sword, at which point I requested initiative. They killed it before it got to act, at which point I had to laugh, because the demon's intent was to help them. Most of the group complained that I shouldn't have requested initiative when the demon had no intent on fighting, to which I responded that an initiative request is not character knowledge and should not dictate their actions.
The group is manhandling the AP, so I thought it a good time to make a point, which I also happened to think was pretty funny. What do you guys think? Was I reasonable, or do they have good reason to complain?
Initiative is somthing that happends when combat starts. It is not in game knowledge but it is a way to make combat work. To ask for initiative is to start combat. there are no rules for initiative outside combat.
You set them up. They have reason to complain.What did you hope to get out of asking initiative when you did?
Edit: and this window was open since yesterday and the thread have Crown since i looked last. Sorry i havent read all the stuff others have said:(
You don't tell people to roll initiative unless there's a fight.
You just don't.
Strongly disagree.
Initiative is for any time it's important to track activities round-by-round.
That doesn't necessarily mean combat. A good DM works with his players to establish that. Yes, most of the time calling for initiative means there's a fight. But I make a point of using initiative in other circumstances. For instance, if a PC is bleeding out, I maintain initiative. Also, if movement/climbing/order-of-events matters, I use initiative to track things.
My players know that sometimes initiative is because there's a ticking bomb somewhere, or there are round-per-level spells in action, or any of a number of other things are going on.
Speaking is a free action that can be taken outside of your turn. It never hurts to talk before killing. In fact, that should be a party's default behaviour.
What if that demon wasn't a demon?
I totally can see the point in round by round activities but initiative simulate the fraction of a second is important reality of combat not the every second counts of disarming a bomb before the timer goes to 000.
Asking for initiative is like holding up a neon sign that reads 'fight now'.I find that a lot (maybe even most) players think this way, which is something I don't really get because neither I nor any of my group think this way. Yeah, rolling for initiative is how almost all encounters (including combats) start, but not every encounter has to be a combat. Is the really that prevalent of a "kill first ask questions later" mentality?
Using initiative for situations that have not yet turnes voilent serves no purpose. Other than reward the most agressive partisipants. You dont need high initiative you just need to attack when you get your turn and then you get to go first.
Holding of Rolling initiative until the figthing starts allow for some suspense on the part of who is going first and stuff.How do you even use initiative in talking situations? who ever wins initiative gets to talk and the others wait there turn? Is high initiative and dex a important diplomacy skill in your game?
Using initiative for situations that have not yet turned violent serves no purpose.
It can create tense situations. The party and a potentially hostile being are having a face off. It's your move. Do you talk? Lay down your weapon? Cast a defensive buff, and risk triggering hostilities? Abandon all hope for a peaceful solution in hope of getting in the first attack? Retreat? Ready an action?
Using initiative for situations that have not yet turned violent serves no purpose.It can create tense situations. The party and a potentially hostile being are having a face off. It's your move. Do you talk? Lay down your weapon? Cast a defensive buff, and risk triggering hostilities? Abandon all hope for a peaceful solution in hope of getting in the first attack? Retreat? Ready an action?
why is it more tense to know who Will go first?
Just on a note - our table uses initiative for out of combat reasons - it's usually reserved for situations where everyone wants to do everything at the same time - in which case we either roll or I just say initiative order and go around the table.
We don't do it to fake anyone out - just sometimes our group has a hard time letting people go first when excited lol.
That being said - we do this and are used to it - I don't think using initiative on occasion outside of combat is a bad thing - it can create tension - it sometimes leads to combat - sometimes doesn't - sometimes helps to determine exactly where people are when a trap or other thing goes off - I don't think trying this for the first time when a monster pops in front of them is a good idea however.
In this case I think the players are justified in feeling tricked.
why is it more tense to know who Will go first?
It's your turn! What are you going to do? Hesitate and you've missed your chance! Make a wrong step and someone will die! Decide now!
This seems more tense then than a situation where whoever feels like doing something gets to do it, and there's unlimited chatting with no danger of being suddenly stabbed.If you're already in initiative, violence can break in an instant. There's no "he's decided to attack you so let's all roll initiative".
(Note that this might actually work less well in situations where a battle is inevitable and you just want to have the PCs and enemies talk for a bit to establish the stakes without someone starting the fight early.)
why is it more tense to know who Will go first?
It's your turn! What are you going to do? Hesitate and you've missed your chance! Make a wrong step and someone will die! Decide now!
This seems more tense then than a situation where whoever feels like doing something gets to do it, and there's unlimited chatting with no danger of being suddenly stabbed.
If you're already in initiative, violence can break in an instant. There's no "he's decided to attack you so let's all roll initiative".(Note that this might actually work less well in situations where a battle is inevitable and you just want to have the PCs and enemies talk for a bit to establish the stakes without someone starting the fight early.)
I see no purpose with it exept you give rogues the short end of the stick generally make fun of folks that wanted resources on initiative and put mechanics where storytelling Can work better. But if it works for you i guess it is not that bad.
It's something that definitely works for some people (see the posts by Gauss in this thread). I haven't done it much myself.
Using initiative for situations that have not yet turned violent serves no purpose.It can create tense situations. The party and a potentially hostile being are having a face off. It's your move. Do you talk? Lay down your weapon? Cast a defensive buff, and risk triggering hostilities? Abandon all hope for a peaceful solution in hope of getting in the first attack? Retreat? Ready an action?why is it more tense to know who Will go first?
Any time a hairline decision could trigger consequences, you have an intense situation. Talking is a free action, and initiative in no way forces more than that. It can however, create a feeling of seriousness, illustrating that any wrong turn could have consequences. Sometimes, even when not in combat, every second and every action have impact, and there's not an abundance of time to sit around and figure it out.
Any time a hairline decision could trigger consequences, you have an intense situation. Talking is a free action, and initiative in no way forces more than that. It can however, create a feeling of seriousness, illustrating that any wrong turn could have consequences. Sometimes, even when not in combat, every second and every action have impact, and there's not an abundance of time to sit around and figure it out.Using initiative for situations that have not yet turned violent serves no purpose.It can create tense situations. The party and a potentially hostile being are having a face off. It's your move. Do you talk? Lay down your weapon? Cast a defensive buff, and risk triggering hostilities? Abandon all hope for a peaceful solution in hope of getting in the first attack? Retreat? Ready an action?why is it more tense to know who Will go first?
But Rolling initiative before the actions are happening is countreproduktive to that. Name me 3 exampels where the "every body act at the same time but one is a fraction of a second ahead" thing is needed in interactions with others outside combat. And i Will reconsider.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It can create tense situations. The party and a potentially hostile being are having a face off. It's your move. Do you talk? Lay down your weapon? Cast a defensive buff, and risk triggering hostilities? Abandon all hope for a peaceful solution in hope of getting in the first attack? Retreat? Ready an action?
If you are already in initiative, and it's your move, there's no "hope" of getting in the first attack - if you abandon the peaceful solution, you will get the first attack. It's your move, after all.
Readied actions make it a bit more complicated, depending on how well you can predict what your opponents' readied actions are. If you don't know what they're watching for you could surprise them (avoid triggering their readied action) and go first - or not. However, in the classic scenario where everyone is pointing a weapon directly at someone else, it's pretty clear that the trigger is "when someone attacks," in which case the first person to decide to attack can actually be confident they'll go last. This was acknowledged by Gauss in the linked thread.
One idea to avert that is rolling initiative twice - once at the start of the encounter, and again when one party has decided to attack (giving the initiating party a small circumstance bonus on their roll to make it more likely, but not guaranteed, they'd go first).
Any time a hairline decision could trigger consequences, you have an intense situation.
This is definitely true, which means that it probably doesn't make a big difference how you use initiative as long as you're clear and consistent.
It's not metagaming if the GM uses "roll for initiative" as shorthand for "the other party is obviously beginning combat...I don't. It does turn out to result in a fight a lot, especially when running AP's, but it should not define an encounter as one to me. However, I realize now that the rules do say it actually does equal combat, which has changed my stance a bit. Now I just think its a crappy rule for the reasons Quantum described above, but I was still wrong.
So talk to your players about why you think it's a crappy rule and how you'll be using it in the future. If you have used initiative outside combat in the past, remind them of those instances. Ask to what extent they were influenced by the aggressive introduction of the demon (the AP's fault) vs the actual call for initiative.
Just don't accuse them of metagaming since it's reasonable to interpret a request for initiative as a signal that your character recognizes an immediate and not merely potential threat.