Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Corwin" data-source="post: 7716424" data-attributes="member: 1560">Given that's your personal take on how combat &quot;is&quot;, and you want people to take their action in a blind bubble, that's fine. Do your thing. You aren't actually doing that &quot;thing&quot;, though (because you never can--that is virtually impossible on any practical level). Which is why I find it odd you are married to such a process. Its not actually achieving your desired goal. At least not for most of the participants. Really only the one who rolled the very lowest initiative. And even then, there was coordination happening with that person, leading up to their round-ending action, because everyone at the table knew they were last and took it into consideration. As well the low roller themselves. It informed their decision making.Also, your theory, that applying knowledge of when people go in the turn, is information &quot;your character really doesn't have&quot; is not objective fact. It is simply how you choose to see the way the game is played. Many people see it otherwise. Many people play where the PCs work in harmony, talking to each other and using teamwork, to coordinate their efforts as the scene plays out. There are countless examples of this in literature and cinema. So I'm sure you get where they are coming from.And yet still being fine with punishing low roles, and/or popular character tropes that do not require being quick to react. Because you are doing it whether you admit to it or not. Its just happening. By nature of how you are doing it. There's no practical way around it.Also, AFAIC, you are using &quot;metagame&quot; in the least useful way here*. Setting aside the pejorative way in which you intended it, initiative is just one of literally many metagame aspect of this hobby. By its nature.[*Not that there is a useful application of that word, IMO. But of all the marginally applicable ways to apply that tag, this is one of the least useful.]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Corwin, post: 7716424, member: 1560"] Given that's your personal take on how combat "is", and you want people to take their action in a blind bubble, that's fine. Do your thing. You aren't actually doing that "thing", though (because you [I]never [/I]can--that is virtually impossible on any practical level). Which is why I find it odd you are married to such a process. Its not actually achieving your desired goal. At least not for most of the participants. Really only the one who rolled the very lowest initiative. And even then, there was coordination happening with that person, leading up to their round-ending action, because everyone at the table knew they were last and took it into consideration. As well the low roller themselves. It informed their decision making. Also, your theory, that applying knowledge of when people go in the turn, is information "your character really doesn't have" is not objective fact. It is simply how you choose to see the way the game is played. Many people see it otherwise. Many people play where the PCs work in harmony, talking to each other and using teamwork, to coordinate their efforts as the scene plays out. There are countless examples of this in literature and cinema. So I'm sure you get where they are coming from. And yet still being fine with punishing low roles, and/or popular character tropes that do not require being quick to react. Because you are doing it whether you admit to it or not. Its just happening. By nature of how you are doing it. There's no practical way around it. Also, AFAIC, you are using "metagame" in the least useful way here*. Setting aside the pejorative way in which you intended it, initiative is just one of literally many metagame aspect of this hobby. By its nature. [*Not that there is a useful application of that word, IMO. But of all the marginally applicable ways to apply that tag, this is one of the least useful.] [/QUOTE]

Verification