Do the initiative rules discourage parley?

[moritheil]

It would be nice if the party in this case had "auto initiative", something like a presumed "20" on their initiative roll when things get ugly. They are, after all, waiting for things to get ugly. But it also allows a very fast thief to bet their init if he rolls really well, etc.

Whoa there. This gets back into the discussion of 3 weeks ago or so that spanned multiple pages and was an argument over "but I'm watching him, how come I don't react before he does?"

Sometimes people just move faster than you thought humanly possible, and beat you to it. I don't think there's anything wrong with that aspect of the system.

To use a really bad but universally understood example, suppose three human mooks (SWAT agents, maybe) close in on Neo in the Matrix. Sure, they have their weapons readied and they know he's there, but the man is blindingly fast. (I mean, he can dodge bullets!) I see no problem with him going first, catching the SWAT team flatfooted and (via Greater cleave) taking them all out.

 

[devilish]

I was just thinking about this too -- I'm running an off-the-shelf module
where the BBEG was, at last, to explain the loose ends of his dastardly plan to the
characters, but they just interupted him and went right to combat.

Sure, the dastardly-plan-speech is cliche' but now I have to figure
out ways to get the info to them -- I guess they'll find a journal --
but what gets me is that the players will say "That didn't make any
sense --- why was BBEG trying to infiltrate this village?" {well, he'd-a-told
you if you coulda just parleyed for a second or two...yeesh!}

Maybe it's because we still have the old-edition habit to think that
experience just comes from killing things and not for conflict-resolution/solving
the problem creatively?

 

[moritheil]

This bugs me a lot, because it removes even the appearance of the party's free will. Why should the PCs be forced to stand motionless and wait for him? They're supposed to be participants in the world, not spectators watching "DM Theatre".

When the evil wizard spends two minutes talking about his garden, that's twenty rounds of dead time-- practically an eternity! What stops the fighter from waltzing over and chopping his head off mid-word? Why don't all the characters use the free time to drink potions or cast defensive spells, or at least draw their weapons? Who says I have to be polite and let the villain talk before I start trying to kill him?

The world is controlled by the DM, but the PCs are controlled by the players. Arbitrarily screwing with that makes for (IMO) a bad game.

So maybe the guy just talks really fast. There's no "control over the PCs by the DM" implied by this. Kennedy could spit out over 300 words per minute, and he didn't have haste spells. Now, the DM can't talk that fast, but you don't seriously think that every real world second equals one game time second, do you?

To get more involved, the DM can always let you attack, then say it's a major image that keeps talking regardless of the group shooting at it, and the real villan is in the next room.

If the DM wants you guys to hear this speech, because it's thematically important, you guys are going to hear the speech. He just has to come up with a more involved explanation. Hell, if you one-round kill a villan and the speech is important enough, he or she can rule that it's an Illumian and his dying words form the speech.

What is it that makes you hate the DM giving the party free information?

Granted, if my party OOC HATED the talk that much, yes, I would do as Ridley's Cohort said, and simply say, okay, OOC, you guys REALLY want to fight now? If they say yes, I roll for initiative then and there and they never hear about the details of how petunias are going to conquer the multiverse.

Six months later, the campaign is over because the petunias were never prevented from overtaking Sigil at that crucial time, and they spread their leafy dominion over all known worlds.

 

[moritheil]

Sure, the dastardly-plan-speech is cliche' but now I have to figure
out ways to get the info to them -- I guess they'll find a journal --
but what gets me is that the players will say "That didn't make any
sense --- why was BBEG trying to infiltrate this village?" {well, he'd-a-told
you if you coulda just parleyed for a second or two...yeesh!}

Maybe it's because we still have the old-edition habit to think that
experience just comes from killing things and not for conflict-resolution/solving
the problem creatively?

There are "Anime combat rules" that allow for a free 1 min or so of speech to be interspersed with every turn, but I don't know if that's a bit over the top for your campaign. (So called because of the amusing propensity of anime characters to give lengthy exposition while beating the tar out of one another.)

My solution, personally, is to just not tell the players, and let them suffer. My players know me well enough to know that I plan meticulously, though, and your players may not, so that may be an issue.

Every action can have a consequence, and players who jump straight to the combat risk missing out on the story, just as they would if they hit "start" to skip a dialogue in a video game.

 

[Celebrim]

Am I missing something that would encourage my players to pause and talk to the Bad Guys before slaughtering them?

I don't think the initiative rules discourage parley in D&D. I do think the fact that D&D combat is not particularly lethal discourages parley, but that's a different subject.

Mostly I think that it is force of habit on the part of both player's and DM's.

Try mixing in any and all of the following to break that habit:

1) An encounter in the dark with potential (good aligned allies) which have the same charge into the fray attitude as the PC's. ("Wait a minute, you are the servants of the evil necromancer, right?")
2) An encounter with a 'bad guy' (Ogre, Giant, etc.) who is both a significantly hard encounter for the party (CR 4 higher than the player's level) and who is also not in fact a particularly bad chap. ("By the god's, you killed Boris??? He's been keeping this land free of Orcs for years. I used to sit on his knee while he told stories!")
3) An encounter with something that is actually much tougher of a fight than it first appears (a group of 6 goblin worg riders that is actually a well equipped 6th level NPC party replete with party cleric, wizard, thief, and 3 min/maxed fighters) which has thier own agenda and it doesn't involve facing off with another adventuring party.
4) An encounter in which the bad guys that the party might normally wax but are holding an obviously innocent hostage. If the PC's try to be ruthless, the bad guys will kill the hostage.
5) An encounter in which if the bad guys gain surprise and hold the clearly superior tactical position, but instead of pressing thier advantage, they try to parley over some matter (they want food, they want a small ammount of gold as a 'fee'). For example, the party might stumple into a prepared ambush of 40 hobgoblin warriors, but the hobgoblins actually waiting for a party of rival orcs and don't want to fight. The hobgoblins have terrain advantage, a seige engine, a dozen skilled archers behind cover, alchemist fire and thunderstones, rogue skirmishers ready to flank the PC's, and clerics behind the lines ready to provide healing. The leaders don't want a fight with the humans, but can't just let them go without losing face. They'll negotiate for a much as they think they can get away with, but will settle for alchohol, a small ammount of gold, or a few weeks worth of food rations provided they and the PC's can get disentangled without casualties mounting up.
6) An encounter with an obvious 'bad guy' which is clearly well beyond the parties abilities, but which is just at the momment not interested in a fight unless the characters force it. For example, an adult red dragon which has just fed on a herd of cattle and is feeling bemused and sleepy. A frost giant on his way across human lands to visit a cousin, who is lost and needs directions. A high level blackguard in ornate black plate mail with an agenda who just has better things to do with his time than kill 'extras' ("Excuse me, but have you seen an elf and a halfling on a white horse? They very likely seemed to be in a hurry?") or ("Have you seen an elderly priest of Lathlander on the road? Which way did he go?"), and so forth.

 

[werk]

I had a DM that broke us of the habit of insta-attacking bad guys. He made them not bad. Not like deep in the dungeon, but if we ran into an orc or say...beholder whilst walking through the forest, there was a chance he was a good guy.

We always attacked based on the DM's description of the encounter, which relies entirely on metagame knowledge, so the DM started making obviously bad guys good and obviously good guys bad. If the party just engaged in combat with a 'good' bad guy it could affect alignment, diety standing, stuff like that. After that we started talking to the bad guys and not trusting the good guys.

Of course this is the DM who's char lost paladinhood when I DMd when he snapped the queen of the fairie in two because he thought she was a similacrum. Appearences and assuptions sure can be deceiving.

 

[Sir Brennen]

To the original poster: I think part of the problem is you are mis-understanding surprise. You don't get surprise if you're standing talking with weapons out. Per the SRD: If no one or everyone starts the battle aware, there is no surprise round.

I personally don't think the initiative system discourages parley - initiative should be called after attempted dialogue has either broken down or obviously not going to be effective (like talking to an ooze )

Now, if the DM calls for init as soon as the party sees a villian, then yes, he's indicating to the players that combat has begun, not talk time. Typically, if the DM thinks the villian would reasonably stop to listen to the pcs, or has something to say himself, then he shouldn't call for init. If, while talking, a player declares "I draw my sword and attack!", then yes, roll for init and consider combat to be started, but anybody, PC or NPC, is free (literally, as a free action) to say "Wait! Listen to me!" In a negotation/dialogue situation, the beginning of combat is in the PC's control, for the most part.

Also, if, during the conversation, PCs are drinking potions and casting spells, and the NPCs notice, then it's obvious that they are preparing for combat and Init is rolled. The NPC may still use his turn to ask what the PC's are doing, or warn or plead - the DM is free to determine whether his characters immediately go on the offensive or not (though they can still hold or ready an action to attack anyone that attacks first). So, the PC's are still in control of whether a fight really breaks out.

Even in this example (emphasis mine):

For example, your party could sneak up on a sleeping collection of thieves. The party is all in position and alert. The party spokesman speaks, waking the thieves. They talk for 10 seconds, then somebody does something stupid. Initiative is rolled, and it turns out all the thieves go before any of the PC's. Even though the PC's are just sitting them, arrows notched, waiting for something.

That doesn't inspire a lot of talking.

Now, it's not clear if it's one of the PCs or NPCs that "does something stupid", but it's still in the realm of role-playing - a player (or DM) is deciding a character is doing something that will start combat. (Who goes first is another issue, and I don't think that's what this thread was about.)

If the PC's aren't taking the opportunity to talk, that's a player issue, not a rules mechanic one.

 

[moritheil]

I had a DM that broke us of the habit of insta-attacking bad guys. He made them not bad. Not like deep in the dungeon, but if we ran into an orc or say...beholder whilst walking through the forest, there was a chance he was a good guy.

We always attacked based on the DM's description of the encounter, which relies entirely on metagame knowledge, so the DM started making obviously bad guys good and obviously good guys bad. If the party just engaged in combat with a 'good' bad guy it could affect alignment, diety standing, stuff like that. After that we started talking to the bad guys and not trusting the good guys.

Of course this is the DM who's char lost paladinhood when I DMd when he snapped the queen of the fairie in two because he thought she was a similacrum. Appearences and assuptions sure can be deceiving.

That works too, although IMC the enemies are often Neutral anyhow, and the players know it. (They aren't as trigger happy, so far.)

 

[azmodean]

For example, your party could sneak up on a sleeping collection of thieves. The party is all in position and alert. The party spokesman speaks, waking the thieves. They talk for 10 seconds, then somebody does something stupid. Initiative is rolled, and it turns out all the thieves go before any of the PC's. Even though the PC's are just sitting them, arrows notched, waiting for something.

There are a couple of major assumptions here, which is that the thieves can attack within a round and the party is unable to ready actions before the thieves wake up. In this situation, even if the thieves won initiative, they have to stand up and draw their weapons before they can attack, and that's assuming they're sleeping with their weapons on. Sure you could theoretically have a thief with quick draw that can make a full attack with thrown weapons immediately, but it seems to me that the character deserves it if they have put that much in the way of resources in being "ready in an instant".

The main issue here though is that DnD uses the ready action for this situation, initiative actually starts before the thieves are woken up, with the entire party readying appropriate actions to take in case of the negotiation going sour. Or if the thieves look at them funny, just depends on the group

 

[William_2]

I was just thinking about this too -- I'm running an off-the-shelf module
where the BBEG was, at last, to explain the loose ends of his dastardly plan to the
characters, but they just interupted him and went right to combat.

Sure, the dastardly-plan-speech is cliche' but now I have to figure
out ways to get the info to them -- I guess they'll find a journal --
but what gets me is that the players will say "That didn't make any
sense --- why was BBEG trying to infiltrate this village?" {well, he'd-a-told
you if you coulda just parleyed for a second or two...yeesh!}

Maybe it's because we still have the old-edition habit to think that
experience just comes from killing things and not for conflict-resolution/solving
the problem creatively?

Oh yea, you have to have the dastardly plot speech! The trick is just to keep droning on and on during combat. See any comic book!
Break off once in a while for verbal components if a spell caster- “I was infiltrating the village because...aer sdf erer dfff fireball...where was I? Yea, the village...ow!...you see, my plot is…”