Don't make me roll for initiative.........again

[Delta]

Or for that matter, why not just resolve all actions in order of Dex, highest to lowest?

Of course, that actually was the rule in "blue book" D&D, 1979.

 

[PallidPatience]

If he were invested in the rule, he would have thought it out carefully and made the appropriate changes to it to make sure it wasn't such a pain to the players. RC, you seem to be a much better guy at things like that than Goldmoon's DM. He doesn't seem to be using the rule because he's thought it through clearly, so he can't really be invested in it except through stubbornness, which is hardly a good reason to do anything.

At the same time, he doesn't seem to be running a regular game on the side, and he doesn't seem to have a lot of people wanting to play (just Goldmoon and his friends), so, while your personal opinion on the point is appreciated, I don't believe the situation is the same.

With that in mind, I definitely think that Goldmoon should first give him the opportunity to defend his use of the rule. If his reason is just "that's the way we've always done it", then Goldmoon should give the reasons he should change (the greater randomness = greater lethality points), including examples of why this rule, without the patches that most defenders of it have used, is not good for the PCs, and the reasons why, personally, it's not fun for Goldmoon and the other players, if they're different from the fact that his PC will die and often. THEN give him the chance to adapt or leave.

 

[Raven Crowking]

PallidPatience, no worries. I just get a little tired of reading the "there's more of us, so what we say goes" sort of philosophy that crops up here and elsewhere. Anyone espousing that sort of philosophy ought to consider carefully whether or not they are actually enjoying the game first. If not, then there is nothing to lose. If so, then you have to measure risk vs. reward level.

OTOH, if your DM charges, you have the right to demand good value for your money.

I, for one, DM for fun, and I DM in whatever way I find fun. If that is also fun for you, welcome aboard! If it is not, move along. Or (better yet) run a game; I'd give the way you like running games a shot.

(Great user name, btw)

 

[Goldmoon]

If he were invested in the rule, he would have thought it out carefully and made the appropriate changes to it to make sure it wasn't such a pain to the players. RC, you seem to be a much better guy at things like that than Goldmoon's DM. He doesn't seem to be using the rule because he's thought it through clearly, so he can't really be invested in it except through stubbornness, which is hardly a good reason to do anything.

At the same time, he doesn't seem to be running a regular game on the side, and he doesn't seem to have a lot of people wanting to play (just Goldmoon and his friends), so, while your personal opinion on the point is appreciated, I don't believe the situation is the same.

With that in mind, I definitely think that Goldmoon should first give him the opportunity to defend his use of the rule. If his reason is just "that's the way we've always done it", then Goldmoon should give the reasons he should change (the greater randomness = greater lethality points), including examples of why this rule, without the patches that most defenders of it have used, is not good for the PCs, and the reasons why, personally, it's not fun for Goldmoon and the other players, if they're different from the fact that his PC will die and often. THEN give him the chance to adapt or leave.

We game on Saturday so we'll see how it goes. Yes, he can be stubborn but so can everyone at times. I think I can convince him to change the rule. If not, Ill just have to get over it if I want to play. Of course, I can shop for another game in the meantime.

 

[Storm Raven]

True. But, so long as the rules are readily available to everyone, it's all good. You can still build a character to do what you want to do. It should also be noted that I run games for, by Core standards, large groups (often 7+), so getting the players to focus on the initiative countdown is very helpful.

What is "the initiative countdown"?

 

[Raven Crowking]

What is "the initiative countdown"?

A sequential countdown of the initiative order.

"Does anyone have higher than 20? Okay...20...19...18...17...16..."...etc.

You call out when your init count is reached, and say what you're going to do. Because you are focused on the count, you are focused on what is happening.

 

[KarinsDad]

PallidPatience, no worries. I just get a little tired of reading the "there's more of us, so what we say goes" sort of philosophy that crops up here and elsewhere. Anyone espousing that sort of philosophy ought to consider carefully whether or not they are actually enjoying the game first. If not, then there is nothing to lose. If so, then you have to measure risk vs. reward level.

It is not that there are more players. It is that both players and DMs have to compromise when there are perceived (rightly or wrongly) game mechanic or campaign issues.

The concept that the DM is god and does not need to compromise when several of his players have a major issue with his game is baloney.

I, for one, DM for fun, and I DM in whatever way I find fun. If that is also fun for you, welcome aboard! If it is not, move along.

My way or the highway does not sound reasonable to me.

The game is not just derived from the DM, it is also derived from the players. You cannot have a good game without both.

With authority comes responsibility. If a DM abuses that responsibility, the players do have a right to call him on it.

 

[DonTadow]

PallidPatience, no worries. I just get a little tired of reading the "there's more of us, so what we say goes" sort of philosophy that crops up here and elsewhere. Anyone espousing that sort of philosophy ought to consider carefully whether or not they are actually enjoying the game first. If not, then there is nothing to lose. If so, then you have to measure risk vs. reward level.

OTOH, if your DM charges, you have the right to demand good value for your money.

I, for one, DM for fun, and I DM in whatever way I find fun. If that is also fun for you, welcome aboard! If it is not, move along. Or (better yet) run a game; I'd give the way you like running games a shot.

(Great user name, btw)

Hey RAven, no worries, I feel you on the more is better thing that happens. I actually am somewhere in the middle despite my responses. My only gripe is the time allocation. I"m interested in running this test though. I've already written the script. My plan, initiative will be rolled soley by the dm each round, i'll let you know saturday how it turned out. HEck ,if it works i might run it like this at gencon.

 

[Storm Raven]

A sequential countdown of the initiative order.

"Does anyone have higher than 20? Okay...20...19...18...17...16..."...etc.

You call out when your init count is reached, and say what you're going to do. Because you are focused on the count, you are focused on what is happening.

Why are you bothering with counting the numbers? Once initiative order has been determined, the numbers are meaningless, only the order matters. It doesn't mater if my initiative is a "20" or a "27", I'm going before the guy who rolled a "16", and if there's nobody in between the two of us, it doesn't matter if he rolled one less than me, or ten.

Just arrange the order once at the start of combat and then you don't need to worry about the "counting down" clumsiness, just who is next. I use cards and just arrange them in the initiative order and cycle through them as combat proceeds. It speeds up combat tremendously.

 

[PallidPatience]

Thanks for the compliment, RC.

I agree with you, certainly. It should be fun for the DM, too, and if the rule is reasonable and makes sense, then there's no reason I, or anyone else, should demand you change it if you like using it. On the other hand, if it's not a reasonable rule, and it's not clearly thought out or defined, players have every right to point out its flaws, and at least have them redressed through modifications or additions to the rule.

Of course, from the way you've described your initiative system, and your other decisions, I think only the most unreasonable players (because unreasonability isn't just a bad DM trait) could find issue with your decisions. Regrettably, other DMs don't think things through so carefully (and neither do I, all the time).

I think I'd enjoy playing in your game, honestly. It seems that your turn-by-turn initiative system is well-balanced and would be fun for a high-tension, fast-paced kind of game.