Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 6793068" data-attributes="member: 32740"><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />But it isn't.  My comment 5 months ago to that video hasn't really changed.  The general idea of D&D initiative systems has always] been that during a round the resolution of one characters actions are assigned priority over another persons actions (or even one entire side is given priority over the other).  Because D&D is not a combat simulation but a roleplaying game lots of other considerations basically tell realism to get stuffed.  There are more important things to worry about in an RPG than "realism" even if versions of D&D don't always choose wisely which things to emphasize.  You choose your character's actions for one round at a time while knowing that you can't do everything you want to do all the time without the enemy ever being able to effectively respond.  When your PC has taken a turn everyone else, allies and opponents ALSO get turns.  There is nothing broken about that basic concept, though often the execution may be lacking.Players seek the advantage of their PC being first in the initiative order so that they can potentially prevent an opponent from acting effectively as HE wants to act, or even killing him before he can respond at all.  But he otherwise GETS HIS TURN to act just as you do.  Your character doesn't just stand there doing nothing... waiting - as LindyBeige tries to insist.  Your character has simply reached the end of the limited sequence of actions he's allowed in a round.  It's the players business to attempt to ensure that choice of actions would leave your character in an advantageous position, relatively safe from counterattack, or otherwise able to withstand a counterattack.  He doesn't like that.  His assumption - as given in that video - seems to be that no matter what you've chosen to do, your character must be free to react PRIOR to the enemy being able to harm you - simply because it's illogical that you'd ever LET the enemy do you harm (as if that's always up to you).Initiative systems exist to ensure that you can't do that.  Yes, it's unrealistic to "take turns" but it is a tested, effective way to run combat in A GAME - which is why so many games do use it and continue to use it.  Failure to accept or appreciate how the mechanics of the game work, or WHY they work the way they do, doesn't mean that those mechanics are broken and worthless and deserving of only ridicule and scorn.In particular, 1E AD&D initiative is a mess and deserving of heaps of ridicule and scorn, but his "criticism" of EVERY version of D&D revolves very much around the mere fact that D&D isn't Runequest, and because it isn't Runequest it is manifestly inferior in every way.  It would be one thing to simply say he doesn't like how D&D handles the issue (different strokes and all that), and that's kinda where he starts out in that video, but he's definitely not trying to be objectively critical or even just express a preference.  When it comes to his videos about D&D he's a fanboy with his own agenda.</blockquote>

Verification