Do the initiative rules discourage parley?

[KarinsDad]

That is precisely my point. I thing years of this sort of poor DMing have lead to a culture in D&D which simply doesn't on the whole (I'm sure many campaigns differ) where talking to the monsters doesn't lead to good things. In fact, in my experience, talking to the monsters just annoys the other players because they are afraid that they will lose the oppurtunity for treasure and experience if I actually talk my way out of the fight. I've actually successfully negotiated a settlement with monsters before, only to have players decide to fight anyway because they know that there is actually little risk (and potential reward) for doing so. This is yet another reason that parley rarely happens in D&D for reasons that have nothing to do with the initiative system.

And while we are speaking of poor DMing, have you ever noticed that monsters are never terrified of the PC's, and that 9 times in 10 if you do parley, the DM will RP the monsters as arrogant and surly and the monsters will act as if they have the superior negotiating position - even if the monster is something like a goblin who ought to be well aware that well armed parties of humans moving around in dungeons are typically things to be feared? This is yet another thing that keeps PC's from parleying, because by experience they've learned that the DM is not going to let them get a better deal than they would get if they just slaughtered the monster.

We have had one serious parlay in our current campaign. The PCs were walking through a very large cavern in a mine and a group of goblins on a ledge some distance away started firing arrows at us. We were getting our butts handed to us since a) our fighter types could not get up onto the ledge, and b) missiles out of the dark are the same as from invisible archers which means you lose your Dex bonus to AC.

It was looking like a TPK when one player decided to parlay. The DM allowed it, but some of the other players were a bit annoyed that they would not be getting revenge on the ambushing goblins. The other players were "expected" (by the DM) to stop fighting, just because one player was yelling for a truce. The other problem with it is that the Goblins had the superior position and numbers, but suddenly no longer wanted to fight??? That was sort of out of character considering that they had no problem with ambushing us in the first place.


I find that many DMs often have difficulty RPing their NPCs and especially their monsters in reasonable ways. There appears to be certain DND cultural norms (monsters often being arrogant, monsters being less aggressive if a TPK is involved, killing monsters = gaining experience and treasure) which minimize good monster RPing and good PC RPing with monsters and NPCs.

An example from a few years back. A group of "sailors" tried to press gang the PCs. 6 sailors with no armor and saps for weapons are going to knock out and kidnap 5 or 6 PCs, many of whom are in armor and most of whom have nasty looking weapons. Huh???

And a DM thinks this is reasonable NPC behavior???

 

[two]

And why would option #1 ever be a good idea, regardless of gaming system? Hello?

Typically (that is: in movies, books, etc), if you've sneaked up on a sleeping band of theives, you jump them and knock them out/tie them up. THEN you parley.....err, rather, you interogate.

You don't wake them up first!

Good lord must everything be spelled out down to the last letter?

Yes it's always better to just attack the band of thieves. D&D and real world reflects this.

After waking the thieves, do the rules support parley without egregiously penalizing the party for trying to speak? No.

The advantage given when not speaking is large compared to speaking.

The rules could make the advantage comparatively less, as per my suggestion: allowing the party to "have 20" on their iniative after parley.

This makes "attack first" still a big advantage (as in real life) but doesn't penalize the party mechanically so much for wanting to parley in the first place.

There is a continuum of suckatude post wake-up, as it were. D&D doesn't have to make the rules so far down on the axis of suck (post wake-up).

 

[Celebrim]

And a DM thinks this is reasonable NPC behavior???

Well I don't.

Your example is kinda atypical. Normally its the PC's that have the advantage on the monsters. In your case, it was the monsters that had the vastly superior bargaining postion.

Here is how I would have handled it.

Bob: I know goblin. I want to try to parley with the goblins.
DM: Ok, say something.
Bob: "Truce. We want a truce!!!"
DM: *clatter* *clatter* (I'm now secretly rolling the PC's Diplomacy check to turn a Hostile attacker into a merely one that dislikes the PC's)
DM: Ok, Jon, your turn.
Jon: Forget this truce nonsense, I'm attacking... *rolls dice*

At this point, it doesn't matter what I rolled for Bob's Diplomacy check. Bob has failed to get the other player's to go along with the plan, the Goblins don't see any reason to stop attacking if the PC's do, and they go right back to being hostile.

-OR-

Jon: Err... yeah, we're in big trouble. I lower my bow, but if they keep attacking, I'm ready to respond.
DM: So is everyone on board with Bob's plan, or does someone have another idea?
PC's (jointly): Yeah, we hold our actions and see what happens.

At this point, assuming Bob is diplomatic and has successfully negotiated a truce (diplomacy DC 20), something like the following happens:

DM: A deep gruff voice snarls out of the darkness, in gutteral Goblin it says, (Jabba the Hutt), "Hoo Hoo Hoo. Foolish humans. You fall right into the trap of the mighty Grulrunk. Now you tell me why I shouldn't kill you all, take all you have, and feed your worthless corpses to my wives?"

Parley ensues. The PC's are at a serious disadvantage, so I'd give them a big time penalty to thier diplomacy check and to offset that they'd better offer Grulrunk a really good deal or the arrows are going to start flying again. Grulrunk's position is that the PC's are at his mercy, and his starting position is "Unconditional Surrender". To get him to accept anything else is either going to involve the PC's offering him something he can't get if they surrender, or really high Diplomacy checks. In practice though, if the PC's can get creative and offer Grulrunk some valuable service (and I'll invent a need that Grulrunk has that the PC's can handle on the spot if I have to), I'll have Grulrunk accept (with reasonable assurances that the party not break faith) because the alternative is probably campaign ending.

But I think this is a bad example, because in practice usually the PC's are the ones with the vastly superior bargaining position and its the PC's that can reasonably expect to demand what Grulrunk is demanding in the above.

 

[KarinsDad]

And intrinsic to the pathetic hobo-ness implied in the example, I might add.

Hobos are often hobos for many reasons that do not match societal norms (mental illness, drug abuse, magical influence in a DND world, etc.). Their reasons for doing something cannot just be assumed.

So, you are saying that it is an Unrealistic Event for a pathetic hobo to act before the PCs, if the PCs "give up" the surprise round by attempting to talk (or parley)?

Why? Your assertion is not a given.

Yes, I am saying that. From a rules perspective, that is what happens. From a realism perspective, it does not make sense.

If they decide to parley, then they cannot ready actions unless they are also in combat. But this is a bit illogical. The standard use of the rules do not match expectations. The expectation is that 3 PCs should be able to ready actions to fire at the hobo if he attempts to get up and the expectation is that all 3 PCs should be able to fire before the hobo gets up.

The Hobo is not the Flash.

Granted, they could "pretend" to be in combat in a surprise round (PC1: I ready an action, PC2: I ready an action, PC3: I ready an action, PC4: I wake up the hobo), but this is just "bending the rules" to get the desired result. It is probably not what most DMs would allow or expect to happen rules-wise.

 

[Celebrim]

If they decide to parley, then they cannot ready actions unless they are also in combat.

Being 'in combat' is a gamist/rules term. It has nothing at all to do with PC actions. In theory, we could run EVERYTHING in terms of combat rounds. The only reason we don't do so is that level of detail would get to be tedious in situations that don't require it.

But this is a bit illogical. The standard use of the rules do not match expectations.

Err... they don't? Are you saying that the rules are flawed or that the way people apply the rules is flawed?

The expectation is that 3 PCs should be able to ready actions to fire at the hobo if he attempts to get up

They can.

...and the expectation is that all 3 PCs should be able to fire before the hobo gets up.

Generally speaking, they can. I just outlined to you how under the rules, if the PC's have a higher initiative bonus than the Hobo, they always go first in this situation. Now, if the PC's don't have a higher initiative bonus than the Hobo, that implies a very special Hobo. One of my rules is that NPC's and PC's are on a level playing field. What applies to one applies to the other. If my quick reflexed PC rogue is in the hobo's position, he has a reasonable expectation of being able to do what protagonist heroes always do in the movies (and sometimes do in real life) and that is get the jump on his captors even though he's disadvantaged. Sure, it would be a difficult thing to attempt, but the PC rogue has a reasonable expectation that there is some possibility of success both for cinematic and realistic reasons. In real life, people blink. They are taken by surprise. In real life, it does often take a momment to consciously go, "Oh no, he moved, I better do something, release the string finger!" unless you have been trained again and again how to respond under pressure to the point that it is a reflex. If you don't believe that, then I doubt you've ever really been in a fight.

The Hobo is not the Flash.

He doesn't have to be. All he needs to be is faster than the PC's, and since the PC's are in D&D superpowered heroes, that certainly implies a degree of superpowered quickness.

Granted, they could "pretend" to be in combat in a surprise round (PC1: I ready an action, PC2: I ready an action, PC3: I ready an action, PC4: I wake up the hobo), but this is just "bending the rules" to get the desired result.

No, it isn't. There is no pretending involved. PC's can ask for the DM to begin resolving things in terms of combat rounds at any time they feel like they need that level of detail, even if it is merely a friendly conversation. If they did it too often when I didn't feel it was warranted, I would get annoyed and have OOC conversation about what thier concerns are, but there is no bending of the rules involved in letting PC's take whatever action they want during thier suprise round. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it was railroad DMing to limit the types of actions a PC can take in a suprise round. Surprise round is after all a gamist/rule mechanic, and not a real and discrete thing.

It is probably not what most DMs would allow or expect to happen rules-wise.

I just told you how I feel.

 

[azmodean]

Granted, they could "pretend" to be in combat in a surprise round (PC1: I ready an action, PC2: I ready an action, PC3: I ready an action, PC4: I wake up the hobo), but this is just "bending the rules" to get the desired result. It is probably not what most DMs would allow or expect to happen rules-wise.

At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check.

I believe this is the applicable quote from the rules. The term "battle" is somewhat lacking in this particular situation. When is the start of the "battle"? When the "combatants" first see each other? When the first blow is struck? When the first action is declared?

I think the most resonable definition in this case would be, "situation where the order of actions is important". This gives us "At the start of a situation where the order of actions is important, each combatant makes an initiative check." With the existing additional rules concerning suprise, etc.

I think the scenarios used in this thread conform to the definition I am advocating here, therefore as soon as the situation becomes apparent to the DM, initiative is called for and characters (wether PCs or NPCs) act in their initiative order.

So in the "hobo" example, the PCs enter initiative order as soon as they decide to confront the hobo and once he joins the initiative order (by becoming aware of the PCs, aka someone wakes him up) they maintain the upper hand due to their readied actions.

In the "ambush the thieves" example, the PCs enter initiative order as they enter detection range of the thieves (as per the "stealth and detection" notes in the wilderness section of the DMG or SRD) and proceed from there, with the thieves getting a listen check once a round to hear the approaching adventurers. (at an arbitrarily chosen position in the initiative order, I would have the check after the lowest initiative PC in each round) If the adventurers manage to avoid early detection, they are free to set themselves up in a tactically superior situation and ready actions in case the thieves decide not to talk. Once in position, if they decide to attempt to bargain instead of slaughtering the thieves, they certainly lose the suprise round, but they maintain first action in the initiative order at least due to their previously readied actions. Meanwhile they are free to talk with their targets until someone decides to break the stalemate.

 

[Celebrim]

Let me jump ahead a few exchanges and get down to the heart of this problem. The whole arguement strikes me as coming from a very rules lawyerish position. All rules in the game bow to the Zeroeth Rule: The DM is always right. If you the DM feel that in this particular situation is unique enough that all three PC's ought to go first, then don't bother rolling the dice. Simply rule that all three players go first on the grounds that its a better simulation of the circumstances than the rules.

But I would argue that this whole mess has come into being because inexperienced DM's have relied to heavily on The Zeroeth Rule and consistantly screwed thier players when the situation is reversed. If you go back and look over this thread, you'll find lots of people complaining how when they stopped to parley the DM ruled - in violation of all the initiative rules over the whole history of the game - that the monsters where now eligible for a surprise round or now gained this advantage or the other over the PC's. So the PC's learned thier lesson and now don't parley.

The current rules, applied consistantly and with attention to detail now handle the job pretty darn well. The vast majority of complaints I hear about the current D20 rules have to do with poor DMing and not problems inherent in the rules. Good rules are never going to able to substitute for a good DM, but alot of bad DMing would be avoided if new DM's would just learn to consistantly apply the rules, demand skill checks, roll reaction checks, and treat the NPC's and the PC's equally and fairly at all times instead of relying on their own judgement for what should happen because clearly - rule zero not withstanding - we can all think of situations where the DM wasn't right. The DM has to approach the game with the idea, what would I think was fair if I was the PC in this situation. You think that way consistantly, and you've gone along way towards being a good DM.

 

[werk]

<edit> i misread that post

 

[Nail]

Hobos are often hobos for many reasons that do not match societal norms (mental illness, drug abuse, magical influence in a DND world, etc.). Their reasons for doing something cannot just be assumed.

(grins, shakes head) Fine, fine; Uncle! You didn't start with this info, but by all means keep piling it on.

Yes, I am saying that. From a rules perspective, that is what happens. From a realism perspective, it does not make sense.

And I don't see a realism problem. This sounds a great deal like an "opinion" rather than a "flaw in the rules".

If I have a loaded crossbow, and I wake up a Hobo, I might expect that the Hobo has a chance to beat my initiative. However that's unlikely, given the physical stats of the Hobo vs the physical stats of my PC. .....Unless you go changing the straw-man again and saying I can't assume the Hobo's Dex or feats or magic items or classes........

... the expectation is that all 3 PCs should be able to fire before the hobo gets up.

Yup, that's the expectation; and that's the most likely outcome. See above.

 

[KarinsDad]

Generally speaking, they can. I just outlined to you how under the rules, if the PC's have a higher initiative bonus than the Hobo, they always go first in this situation.

I've already explained to you that Take 20 is not allowed for initiatives in DND. You can continue to outline your house rule, but that will not change the fact that it is a house rule.

but there is no bending of the rules involved in letting PC's take whatever action they want during thier suprise round. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it was railroad DMing to limit the types of actions a PC can take in a suprise round.

Actually, PCs are limited to standard actions in a surprise round, so no there are several things they cannot do.

Also, even if they ready an action, the hobo could also ready an action as well and then you get into the chicken and egg scenario described earlier.

There is no solution to it other than the DM just adjudicating the situation and each DM might adjudicate differently. Hence, the rules do not handle it well because they do not really take it into account.