Roll Initiative!

[Crothian]

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.

The article is written by Andrew Finch.

 

[Aeric]

In one of my old campaigns, I made a point to end every session on a cliffhanger. That way, the players would be excited and looking forward to the next session, and each session would start with action--just like Andrew is suggesting in his article. It worked really well, and I will definitely be doing it again in my next campaign.

 

[Reynard]

The article is written by Andrew Finch.

Oops. I misremember.

 

[Lanefan]

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

And often, the most logical break point is when the party either sacks out for the night, or is ready to go in the morning...and while combats *can* occur at such times, having it happen too often stretches credibility to breaking.

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".

Sure it is.

One other thing that gets people involved right off the top is to give out ExP at session's start. At least they're all at the table paying attention...

Lanefan

 

[Reynard]

And often, the most logical break point is when the party either sacks out for the night, or is ready to go in the morning...and while combats *can* occur at such times, having it happen too often stretches credibility to breaking.

Do you start every session off exactly where the last one ended? Because, if so, I would be surprised. Unless it was mid-adventure, I don't think I have ever seen that happen. You end one session interrogating the local grifter about his knowledge of the highwaymen's camp, and start the next three days into travel on the road there. At least, IME you do.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I start almost all my sessions with "Where are you and why are you there?" unless there's an obvious place that they are based on the last session. So, they decide if they start traveling or if they decided to take a layover, or if they want to pick up right where they were last session.

This leaves it almost impossible for me to start a session as you describe it. Of course, I often figure out where they are going to start or what their plans are going to be between sessions. I just got off the phone with one of them, actually, talking about that exact thing.

I have never witnessed this phenominon of Players not paying attention until combat begins. It's really strange to me that people have that problem. Last game I played in, there wasn't a combat until about an hour into the session and that was fast. Session before that was more like 3 hours into the session.

I don't want to force a combat into the session when a session when it wouldn't benefit from it. I certainly wouldn't start the next session with combat right off the bat. It would destroy the mood completely!

And I completely agree with this:

And often, the most logical break point is when the party either sacks out for the night, or is ready to go in the morning...and while combats *can* occur at such times, having it happen too often stretches credibility to breaking.

It's most logical to stop a session when the PCs are safe, not when they're in danger of being attacked. I can see the benefit of ending on cliffhangers, but I run my game once a month, so its impractical from that viewpoint. Further, a sense of completion at the end of a session is in many ways better than a sense of completion at the beginning or halfway through.

Ending a session after killing the BBEG and dividing up his spoils gives them something to celebrate about between sessions, to be happy about and enjoy. Ending right before the BBEG fight means that they might be anticipating it, but the sense of accomplishment won't be as enjoyable IMO, because it comes when they have other things on their mind, since the session keeps going. It just doesn't seem as good a place to leave off to me.


Further, starting a game basically putting the PCs in a situation that the Players never had any control over isn't something I would want to do, and I don't think my group would enjoy that very much. I run a fairly freeform game, and that would just leave a bad taste in all our mouths. It wouldn't be something to look forward to, it would be more of an annoyance at "What situation has my PC unwittingly walked into this time?" Not enjoyable.

 

[Uruush]

I like to start off a campaign asking my players, "What horrible thing just happened?" or "Why were you just attacked by these guys (show picture), and who are they?" And then, "Roll initiative!"

But I'm happy to say my group would completely rebel if we had combat every session. We have combat about every fourth session, and that's they way they like it.

 

[Felon]

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?

Well, you might have missed the part where D&D is an interactive game that grants the players a pivotal role in controlling the flow of events. The DM's timetable sometimes has to relent.

 

[Crothian]

Well, you might have missed the part where D&D is an interactive game that grants the players a pivotal role in controlling the flow of events. The DM's timetable sometimes has to relent.

I did, that would be written where?

 

[Felon]

Where I just wrote it hehe.