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
*Dungeons & Dragons
Is my DM being fair?
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="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7147244" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>The game makes sense if you frame the combat so that there aren't blind actions as well. This is a non-starter of an argument.</p><p></p><p>And my argument has been steadfastly this, and no other: abusing the initiative mechanic to reinsert a backdoor surprise effect because you, as DM, made the decision to allow a feat that eliminated surprise as a mechanic is bad play. Given that I've been saying that, over and over, I'm a little surprised you didn't catch it and thought I have a problem with the initiative system. That works fine; what doesn't work is you abusing it so that you can still have surprise if an Alert player has the bad luck to roll higher than you on initiative.</p><p></p><p>As for you last, you're misplacing the blame. You're blaming and then punishing the player for a failed perception check by using a flawed framing for the initiative system at step later and then only if the player has the temerity to roll higher than you on initiative. YOU have all of the power to frame the situation such that this does not obtain. To blame the player for your choices to engage in poor play because the player rolled a bad perception check is ridiculous. There are all kinds of ways to both have consequences for the bad perception check (missing a crucial detail, like that the mage has a fire shield up, for example) without engaging in silly screw games with your players using the initiative system.</p><p></p><p>I have a rule that combat starts in a way they everyone knows it's started to avoid this exact thing. I frame the beginning of combat without ambiguity. If there's a hidden attacker, their attacking starts initiative -- note, not their successful attack, but the actions needed to conduct their attack. Someone quick or lucky could disrupt it. That's what initiative is <em>for</em>, not for some ordering where you tell your players that nothing has happened yet, what do you do, while you count down to your surprise attack. Blegh. The mage begins casting his spell (also, verbal components must be spoken clearly and at normal volume, so the whispering spell business doesn't fly) and I call for initiative. If the party didn't notice him before (failed perception) they're surprised. If one (or more) have the alert feat, then they aren't surprised and have a chance between the start of the casting and the end of it to act, if they roll well on initiative. What doens't happen is supersecretsquirrel knowledge hidden from everyone so they have to act blindly in initiative just so I can get my jollies off with a backdoor surprise mechanism. And what double doesn't happen is me blaming realism or the player's rolling for doing this to them.</p><p></p><p>Be a better DM, don't screw over your players and then hide behind 'realism' as an excuse.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7147244, member: 16814"] The game makes sense if you frame the combat so that there aren't blind actions as well. This is a non-starter of an argument. And my argument has been steadfastly this, and no other: abusing the initiative mechanic to reinsert a backdoor surprise effect because you, as DM, made the decision to allow a feat that eliminated surprise as a mechanic is bad play. Given that I've been saying that, over and over, I'm a little surprised you didn't catch it and thought I have a problem with the initiative system. That works fine; what doesn't work is you abusing it so that you can still have surprise if an Alert player has the bad luck to roll higher than you on initiative. As for you last, you're misplacing the blame. You're blaming and then punishing the player for a failed perception check by using a flawed framing for the initiative system at step later and then only if the player has the temerity to roll higher than you on initiative. YOU have all of the power to frame the situation such that this does not obtain. To blame the player for your choices to engage in poor play because the player rolled a bad perception check is ridiculous. There are all kinds of ways to both have consequences for the bad perception check (missing a crucial detail, like that the mage has a fire shield up, for example) without engaging in silly screw games with your players using the initiative system. I have a rule that combat starts in a way they everyone knows it's started to avoid this exact thing. I frame the beginning of combat without ambiguity. If there's a hidden attacker, their attacking starts initiative -- note, not their successful attack, but the actions needed to conduct their attack. Someone quick or lucky could disrupt it. That's what initiative is [I]for[/I], not for some ordering where you tell your players that nothing has happened yet, what do you do, while you count down to your surprise attack. Blegh. The mage begins casting his spell (also, verbal components must be spoken clearly and at normal volume, so the whispering spell business doesn't fly) and I call for initiative. If the party didn't notice him before (failed perception) they're surprised. If one (or more) have the alert feat, then they aren't surprised and have a chance between the start of the casting and the end of it to act, if they roll well on initiative. What doens't happen is supersecretsquirrel knowledge hidden from everyone so they have to act blindly in initiative just so I can get my jollies off with a backdoor surprise mechanism. And what double doesn't happen is me blaming realism or the player's rolling for doing this to them. Be a better DM, don't screw over your players and then hide behind 'realism' as an excuse. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Is my DM being fair?
Top