Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jacob Lewis" data-source="post: 9780496" data-attributes="member: 6667921">You’re absolutely right that procedural segmentation guarantees everyone a turn and helps keep things clean, predictable, and fair. The structure works—especially when a table has uneven personalities or engagement levels. But that’s also where the deeper problem hides: procedure is often compensating for human imbalance, not mechanical necessity.The question then becomes, what do we sacrifice in exchange for that fairness? Sequential initiative doesn’t just create order—it conditions players to wait their turn, to disengage until the spotlight swings back. That tradeoff can be fine, even necessary, but it’s worth recognizing that the structure itself creates a rhythm that shapes how players behave in combat.So I wouldn’t argue against procedure—it’s essential in many cases—but I would question whether its benefits always outweigh what it costs in terms of immediacy and flow. Systems that loosen those constraints don’t remove fairness; they just relocate it—from the rulebook to the table, where communication and shared understanding carry the weight instead of the turn tracker.</blockquote>