Roll Initiative!

[Crothian]

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.

Did I miss where the article said to have combat at the beginning of ever session even if it doesn't make sense, or are people assuming DM's can't place combat at the beginning of a D&D session without making sure the story supports it?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Did I miss where the article said to have combat at the beginning of ever session even if it doesn't make sense, or are people assuming DM's can't place combat at the beginning of a D&D session without making sure the story supports it?

Wouldn't make sense in my games, at least.

 

[Lanefan]

Did I miss where the article said to have combat at the beginning of ever session even if it doesn't make sense, or are people assuming DM's can't place combat at the beginning of a D&D session without making sure the story supports it?

The latter. If the story and-or situation doesn't support it, why butcher it so it does? If the previous session ended with the party at home in their keep just about to divide treasure, then treasury division is what starts this session. Otherwise, you'll just end up spending more time on the "extra" combat than you'd lose by people not paying as much attention...

Lanefan

 

[Kunimatyu]

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

Eh, it's okay. I'm not a fan of "combat!" at the beginning of every session either -- though like I said, it could work very well for a very pulpy Eberron game.

 

[Crothian]

The latter. If the story and-or situation doesn't support it, why butcher it so it does? If the previous session ended with the party at home in their keep just about to divide treasure, then treasury division is what starts this session. Otherwise, you'll just end up spending more time on the "extra" combat than you'd lose by people not paying as much attention...

Why can't a DM who knows he's going to do it make sure the story and or situation support it? Why assume a DM will just butcher this? THis isn't for everyone, but for the people who use it I think they can easily make it work. A bad DM can mess this up, but bad DMs can make lots of things ruin a game.

 

[Arnwyn]

Did I miss where the article said to have combat at the beginning of ever session even if it doesn't make sense, or are people assuming DM's can't place combat at the beginning of a D&D session without making sure the story supports it?

I don't know what people are doing. Here is the offending quote from the article:

No matter what happened last week, last month (or however long ago it was) you start the new session with a fight.

I think the "no matter what" statement is what people might object to.

And rightfully so.

 

[Crothian]

Wouldn't make sense in my games, at least.

However, if you wanted to do this do you have the skill to allow it to make sense?

 

[ThirdWizard]

However, if you wanted to do this do you have the skill to allow it to make sense?

Sure. But the game would be a worse game overall.

 

[Reynard]

Did I miss where the article said to have combat at the beginning of ever session even if it doesn't make sense, or are people assuming DM's can't place combat at the beginning of a D&D session without making sure the story supports it?

I think the supposition is that sessions have defined 'endings' even if the adventure isn't over. Of course, this isn't necessarily practical.

Remember that the only game Mearls is running right now is a Friday lunchtime game that strts with an initiative roll and doesn't leave combat-time for the whole session. That's coloring his viewpoint on the issue, obviously.

Nonetheless, I think it is a good idea, *if* you can manage to break your sessions up at appropriate points. For example, if last time you finished with the PCs going to see the local lord about getting some help fighting an evil cult, this time you start with an alleyway attack by said cultists -- either while the PCs are on the way to see the lord or after, in which case you "recap" (play through) the discussion with the lord after the fight has finished.

I see his point: starting with an initiative roll and a combat immediately enagges most players, especially if you agree with him regarding what's cool and important in a D&D game. If your playstyle is extremely different than baseline D&D, though it doesn't work. That is not, however, an excuse to call the idea "dumb".

 

[LostSoul]

I would adjust it somewhat.

Instead of starting every game with "Roll for Init!" (which I would like, but whatever), I'd start off each game with some sort of conflict. Whatever that is, combat, diplomacy, a game of cards, whatever.