Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 6989079" data-attributes="member: 6787650">This whole tangent started with Sacrosanct observing that Internet posters seem to make certain assumptions ("players don't X"); I have noticed that my experience is quite different ("player do X") and attribute that different at least in part to not using cyclic initiative ("players could X but probably wouldn't because Y").Now, I could be wrong about that--maybe you're going to argue that "players can and do X", or that they don't but that some other Z instead of Y is partly or wholly responsible. But first I want to make sure we're talking about the same subject, which is about "would" and not "could".You could run a game in which the DM keeps the character sheets and adventures completely in his head (e.g. because you're running it as you drive the kids on a long road trip) and dice-rolling consists of guessing one of the numbers the DM has in his head, and you could have exactly the same adventures in that game that you would when playing around a tabletop or online. But you wouldn't. I have to appeal to your intuition here because I can't prove that you wouldn't, but the fact is that you wouldn't. Both DM behavior and player behavior will change in response to what is easy and what is hard in that game environment; you'll probably see fewer combats and more social engagement, because combats just got harder to run. Could is not will.So my question for you is, how often do you see players declare multi-round actions when you're playing with cyclic initiative? I don't use cyclic initiative, and I see multi-round declarations relatively frequently, maybe once every couple of sessions(?). I see improvised or non-PHB-standard action declarations more often than that, several times a session I guess. My hypothesis is that people using vanilla PHB rules will see both kinds of actions less frequently than that on average. If those rates that I'm seeing are in fact typical, my hypothesis is disproved. Are they in fact typical, @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=8900" target="_blank">Tony</a>?===========================BTW, with the Bob example, I think you've already conceded that players using cyclic initiative wouldn't act cooperatively. The only remaining question is whether the ones in WEGO initiative would act the way I conjectured: that they would say, "Okay, Bob. DM, we're all Dodging for two rounds until Bob can shut that portcullis." That's our actual point of disagreement: I think they would, because the system encourages cooperative planning and makes that plan of action easy for the players (not necessarily for the PCs).You think they wouldn't do that and would prefer instead to make attack rolls.</blockquote>

Verification