Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SteveC" data-source="post: 9315036" data-attributes="member: 9053">This is a good point. What I have seen is that this was the number one discussed issue. I like that they made this an optional rule because I don't agree that it needs to have the rule changed, but this is a good option. Would I use it? Probably not. But I have played PbtA games, including Dungeon World, where I have seen an actual problem.In Dungeon World, the initiative system is going on purely in the GM's head, so they're the one who prompts for the next character to act. I have seen this be a problem in actual play because the GM just has so much going on that some players get skipped. I like what Daggerheart is doing here because I think it moves actions and who's acted out into the open and lets everyone see it, so the table can address the issues as a whole.But I've only run a couple of combats, so I'll have to agree that this could be a potential problem, and this is a decent solution.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SteveC, post: 9315036, member: 9053"] This is a good point. What I have seen is that this was the number one discussed issue. I like that they made this an optional rule because I don't agree that it needs to have the rule changed, but this is a good option. Would I use it? Probably not. But I have played PbtA games, including Dungeon World, where I have seen an actual problem. In Dungeon World, the initiative system is going on purely in the GM's head, so they're the one who prompts for the next character to act. I have seen this be a problem in actual play because the GM just has so much going on that some players get skipped. I like what Daggerheart is doing here because I think it moves actions and who's acted out into the open and lets everyone see it, so the table can address the issues as a whole. But I've only run a couple of combats, so I'll have to agree that this [I]could [/I]be a potential problem, and this is a decent solution. [/QUOTE]

Verification