Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7596430" data-attributes="member: 6919838">I'm with you on this. I would suspect that in many cases, adherence to the having things done in proper order, terminology, and sequencing of things gets a lot more blah blah must be on forum posts by a certain few thsn its gets ever into a thing at the tsble.I know if I had a GM spend a second of game time correcting me to not say skill check because that means I might be thinking we are in another edition or give a &quot;dont act like you are the GM&quot; because I asked about initiative I would fail to contain my laughter *at* thrm.But, to me, the underlying cause is &quot;rolling for initiative&quot;. RFI is done at a subjective moment and governs the order of actions rigidly. Given the subjective nature, and that in 5e the event that triggers initiative &quot;may not have happened yet&quot; or even be known, given the establishment of robots in disguise.... err... columns that can appear as statues until... etc etc (especially if already within the session) it's a very understandable thing.Asking the player to not &quot;start combat&quot; by rolling initiative until the bad guy does something that tells you its initiative time in those circumstances is gonna be a trip wire for some.In the last room, there was a statue that animated sndvtudhed and attacked you - you rolled initiative.In the room before, there were goblins who rushed and attacked you. You rolled initiative.In this room, there is a goblin at a desk and a statue on the other side.If the players want to attack the statue but it's a statue no roll initiative? Dont be a GM? If the goblin doesnt want to fight-, or is an illusion, and the players act aggressively, do you really not call for initiative and tip them off?Sometimes sure you may waive it for expediency, but a gameplay choice of the GM to have and setup &quot;ambiguous combat beginnings **and** strictly only use init for those **and ** get prickly at the proper procefure of things and who says what - recipe for irksome outcomes.It may not be but in the statues rooms etc a GM getting irked at a player wanting to call init feels like it's in the zip code of&nbsp; &quot;you cant go before my surprise springs&quot; if not on the same street.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7596430, member: 6919838"] I'm with you on this. I would suspect that in many cases, adherence to the having things done in proper order, terminology, and sequencing of things gets a lot more blah blah must be on forum posts by a certain few thsn its gets ever into a thing at the tsble. I know if I had a GM spend a second of game time correcting me to not say skill check because that means I might be thinking we are in another edition or give a "dont act like you are the GM" because I asked about initiative I would fail to contain my laughter *at* thrm. But, to me, the underlying cause is "rolling for initiative". RFI is done at a subjective moment and governs the order of actions rigidly. Given the subjective nature, and that in 5e the event that triggers initiative "may not have happened yet" or even be known, given the establishment of robots in disguise.... err... columns that can appear as statues until... etc etc (especially if already within the session) it's a very understandable thing. Asking the player to not "start combat" by rolling initiative until the bad guy does something that tells you its initiative time in those circumstances is gonna be a trip wire for some. In the last room, there was a statue that animated sndvtudhed and attacked you - you rolled initiative. In the room before, there were goblins who rushed and attacked you. You rolled initiative. In this room, there is a goblin at a desk and a statue on the other side. If the players want to attack the statue but it's a statue no roll initiative? Dont be a GM? If the goblin doesnt want to fight-, or is an illusion, and the players act aggressively, do you really not call for initiative and tip them off? Sometimes sure you may waive it for expediency, but a gameplay choice of the GM to have and setup "ambiguous combat beginnings **and** strictly only use init for those **and ** get prickly at the proper procefure of things and who says what - recipe for irksome outcomes. It may not be but in the statues rooms etc a GM getting irked at a player wanting to call init feels like it's in the zip code of "you cant go before my surprise springs" if not on the same street. [/QUOTE]

Verification