Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Do the initiative rules discourage parley?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 2200890" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>:shakes head: Come back when you have some idea about what you are talking about. D&D on the whole (and especially in its modern incarnation) takes the design position that rules and other game related things cannot be detected in character and therefore that rules should not be written which are based on the character's (rather than the player's) knowledge of the rules. Initiative is precisely a case in point. It exists at the game level as a simulationist tool, but it's merely a means of approximating what actually is going on. Characters in the game don't actually take turns moving and they don't actually know thier own initiative score. The difficulties to disarm traps aren't actually generally assumed to be in the universe described by the game to be divided into well known discrete units by people with enumerable levels of skill. Magic mouth's and Bindings can't actually be set to trigger on classes or a particular level or specific number's of hit points any other mechanic which is external to the simulation and cannot be observed from within it.</p><p></p><p>There is a very big difference between things that are real, things that are real in the game, and things that are real in the world being simulated by the game. I'm not the one failing to understand the subtle differences. For example:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Is a statement that seems to imply that time moves differently for characters when they are in combat and when they aren't, as if the analog world suddenly became digital and discrete and filled with stop motion turns just when hostile spirits were present, and then moved back into continious time the moment hostility passed by. It's as if you were suggesting that the world was neatly divided into 5' steps and creatures really didn't have a facing. Not only is this a bit ridiculous, but its impinging the rules onto the game in a petty way that clearly violates their intention. Think about what you are suggesting. You are suggesting that the characters cannot prepare a combat action if the NPC is asleep, but could if he wasn't. What are you going to do when the PC says, "I pull my bow back and aim an arrow at the hobo. If he stirs I'm going to shoot him."? Do you say, "No, that's a ready action and since the ready action depends on the initiative order you can't actually take one until an initiative order exists, and the initiative order can't exist until the NPC is awake so you can't bend your bow and aim at him until he is."??? Nonsense. There is absolutely nothing that demands that initiative only be rolled in the round immediately before someone hits someone else, and in particular not allowing the player's to make initiative checks until they know for sure that combat might be emminent not only is unfair to the player's but at times conveys information to the players that might otherwise be concealed and can potentially complicate the DM's job. For example, if the player's enter a room containing a trap with a time delay, it's worth while knowing who takes actions in what order especially if PC's are competing to investigate something first (to scoop treasure if they can). Some sort of order needs to be kept, and actions will have to be termed in rounds so I will know who will be where when the thing goes off. But if I must ask for initiatives whenever the PC's are in danger, I'm letting the game impinge on the universe it simulates.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 2200890, member: 4937"] :shakes head: Come back when you have some idea about what you are talking about. D&D on the whole (and especially in its modern incarnation) takes the design position that rules and other game related things cannot be detected in character and therefore that rules should not be written which are based on the character's (rather than the player's) knowledge of the rules. Initiative is precisely a case in point. It exists at the game level as a simulationist tool, but it's merely a means of approximating what actually is going on. Characters in the game don't actually take turns moving and they don't actually know thier own initiative score. The difficulties to disarm traps aren't actually generally assumed to be in the universe described by the game to be divided into well known discrete units by people with enumerable levels of skill. Magic mouth's and Bindings can't actually be set to trigger on classes or a particular level or specific number's of hit points any other mechanic which is external to the simulation and cannot be observed from within it. There is a very big difference between things that are real, things that are real in the game, and things that are real in the world being simulated by the game. I'm not the one failing to understand the subtle differences. For example: Is a statement that seems to imply that time moves differently for characters when they are in combat and when they aren't, as if the analog world suddenly became digital and discrete and filled with stop motion turns just when hostile spirits were present, and then moved back into continious time the moment hostility passed by. It's as if you were suggesting that the world was neatly divided into 5' steps and creatures really didn't have a facing. Not only is this a bit ridiculous, but its impinging the rules onto the game in a petty way that clearly violates their intention. Think about what you are suggesting. You are suggesting that the characters cannot prepare a combat action if the NPC is asleep, but could if he wasn't. What are you going to do when the PC says, "I pull my bow back and aim an arrow at the hobo. If he stirs I'm going to shoot him."? Do you say, "No, that's a ready action and since the ready action depends on the initiative order you can't actually take one until an initiative order exists, and the initiative order can't exist until the NPC is awake so you can't bend your bow and aim at him until he is."??? Nonsense. There is absolutely nothing that demands that initiative only be rolled in the round immediately before someone hits someone else, and in particular not allowing the player's to make initiative checks until they know for sure that combat might be emminent not only is unfair to the player's but at times conveys information to the players that might otherwise be concealed and can potentially complicate the DM's job. For example, if the player's enter a room containing a trap with a time delay, it's worth while knowing who takes actions in what order especially if PC's are competing to investigate something first (to scoop treasure if they can). Some sort of order needs to be kept, and actions will have to be termed in rounds so I will know who will be where when the thing goes off. But if I must ask for initiatives whenever the PC's are in danger, I'm letting the game impinge on the universe it simulates. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Do the initiative rules discourage parley?
Top