Roll Initiative!

[Cam Banks]

What's interesting to me is that there's a vocal segment who harken back to the days when there was a lot more story and character development going on, before 3e introduced more complicated rules for everything.

It's been my observation that, in the past 10 years, roleplaying games including D&D have in fact spent a great deal of effort in promoting such things as an active approach to characterizations, opening up options for more interesting kinds of play, broadening the scope of what a character can do (and thereby providing a "menu" of choices that can lead to interesting stories), and so forth.

From a game that has grown from being the sort of table-chat you have over a combat simulation to one that, while keeping the hefty combat element, also praises and rewards diverse activity during the game, I think D&D has more than shown that it accomodates far more than it maybe once did.

Most of us remember what we liked the most about the game when we started, if we're "old-timers," and the people who're writing for the game now do, too. Even though starting a session with a fight may not be the best choice for every group or every game, it certainly brings the subject into focus. Do something with your time. It's a game, it should be entertaining and involve all of the players, so the action really needs to start from the beginning if at all possible.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Reynard]

And please understand that while you may consider this BS, it is a very real concern for me. I do worry that story and characters are being overlooked in favor of mechanics. Not that rules are bad, just that I feel there should be a balanced point of view between the two.

I think that the knee-jerk response you've gotten so far is based on the fact that, for many, "story" and "character" are not something that can be overshadowed by rules. It is a role-playing game -- "story" and "character" happen anyway, regardless of whether you are playing RCD&D or 3.5 with all the trimmings.

More to the point, a "Design and Development" article is about the rules and mechanics. There is no way to "design" story or character, at least not in a way that doesn't restrict them in some fashion. So concentrating rules design and development on combat, magic and the like actually insultes and encourages "story" and "character" simply by leaving them alone.

*sigh* Apparantly, I have blatantly misstated and, unintentionally, presented a polarized view. My apologies all around.

I wouldn't worry too much. You only mistake was ising the "roll vs. role" bit, which always throws up A BadWrongFunism red flag. It has gone from cliche to stereotype to insult (as such things are wont to do) and should be avoided.

 

[Elf Witch]

This would not work in the games I play in. A lot of times we end with us doing something that a combat situation would not make any sense.

I would be pissed if we were finally getting to talk to the king and get the vital info we neededand it was interrupted by some random combat encounter that the DM put in there just to be able to start the game with combat.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I should run a one-shot for you, starting with "ROLL INITIATIVE" and "You see a mass of writhing, serpentine heads rising from the water" just too see how red your face could get

A one shot is a very very different thing than an ongoing campaign.

I've run games without a single combat. I'd like to try that just to see how red your face gets.

 

[Henry]

*sigh* Apparantly, I have blatantly misstated and, unintentionally, presented a polarized view. My apologies all around.

No worries, and I wasn't offended, I was just poking a little fun. As Reynard says, most of the time that phrase is invoked, it's usually part of someone's speech about how much better it used to be before now, and includes scenes of walking uphill in the snow, both ways, to get to and from a game.

 

[Gargoyle]

I've used the "roll for initiative" approach for a very long time to start my sessions. But I don't use it all the time. It loses its punch if you do that. I do it whenever I feel the "pre-game" session has dragged on too long, or whenever I have some fun situation I want to throw them into and then explain as they fight.

I guess I use it about half the time.

 

[Woas]

Yuck. Why does it have to be combat? If you want to snap the players out of chit-chat mode and into game mode then telling them "after negotiating with the Viceroy you are lead to the throne room and introduced to King Mecklemburg himself. Bards and other charismatic characters, start your pleading for help..."
Sure combat is fun and all but sometimes its just not logical. A stituation like that could easily snap people into the game as well as any combat.

 

[Henry]

If you want to snap the players out of chit-chat mode and into game mode then telling them "after negotiating with the Viceroy you are lead to the throne room and introduced to King Mecklemburg himself. Bards and other charismatic characters, start your pleading for help..."
Sure combat is fun and all but sometimes its just not logical. A stituation like that could easily snap people into the game as well as any combat.

Depends on the players; the player in my game who plays an Artificer would probably still be picking through his equipment list while the ones more interested in roleplay would slowly get themselves worked up into interest.

Sometimes I even use a joke, sadistically, to get them interested.

"As we open, (list of character names), you find yourselves chained to a dank dungeon wall, stripped naked but for loincloths, and wondering how you came to be in this sorry state....

"What?!? Drogar would never be taken easily!"
"Huh? What about my wizard's teleport!?!"

...Just kidding guys; I just wanted your attention. "

 

[Lanefan]

Dumb idea.

Yes, combat or significant action livens things up...but to stick one in at the start of each session whether it makes sense in the story or not is just plain silly.

The same effect can be achieved without combat simply by asking each player to roll a d-20 "for no particular reason", then sending a note to each player...even if each note says only "Null note - ignore", it gets people's attention as they're wondering what everyone else got and-or what the roll was for. (and if your players start showing the notes to each other, smack 'em down...hard)

Otherwise, my sessions usually "puck-drop" with me telling everyone what hit points, spell points (we use a s.p. system), etc. they were at when last seen.

Lanefan

 

[Mercule]

Depends on the players; the player in my game who plays an Artificer would probably still be picking through his equipment list while the ones more interested in roleplay would slowly get themselves worked up into interest.

Sometimes I even use a joke, sadistically, to get them interested.

"As we open, (list of character names), you find yourselves chained to a dank dungeon wall, stripped naked but for loincloths, and wondering how you came to be in this sorry state....

"What?!? Drogar would never be taken easily!"
"Huh? What about my wizard's teleport!?!"

...Just kidding guys; I just wanted your attention. "

Hmm... I need to try this. One of my players has as his personal pet peeve the notion of being captured, looted, moved, or otherwise tampered with without his knowledge and die rolling -- specifically the "jailhouse start". The question is, could I tell him it was a joke before he stormed out?

As for starting in media res, I like it and have everytime I've seen it mentioned. I don't want to see it as combat every session, but there are variants that would work.

Take, for instance, the audience with the King. End session 1 with the party getting to the castle. Start session 2 with, "You are led before the King. He says, 'So, you are the ones known as The Fist of Dannage Rung. Explain yourselves.'"

Either way, the group is going to be brought to attension immediately.