Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6678602" data-attributes="member: 7006">Yup... I run my game from a much more narrativistic point of view.  I go with my gut on whatever makes "sense" based upon how the story is playing out.  So if two groups are talking to each other and there's no combat yet, I don't roll initiative.  There's no need.  It's only when someone starts combat that I'll have people roll it.  As the DM (and thus controlling the monsters) if the rash member of the party decides to shoot first while others are talking, I'll make the immediate decision as to whether they were expecting something like that or had put their guard down during parlay.  From my earlier post, I was talking from the POV that the monsters were not expecting an attack during the parlay, and thus the initiative rolls were between the rash party member and whomever was close enough in the party to actually affect the rash member's action.  Thus the "surprise" round of the rash member's attack.But, had I determined that one or more of the monsters DID expect a possible attack during the parlay, then I'd have everyone roll initiative to see if any enemy paying attention possibly was fast enough to react to the rash person before the rash person got their attack off.  I might decide that a few of the monsters (like primarily the one or two actually talking to the party) might not actually get to react during this fast phase (IE they were "surprised" by the rash member's attack), and the same might hold true for some of the party too (like the one talking or if someone else was scouting on the edges of the circle or otherwise generally not paying attention toward the rash character.)This kind of stuff can and will change every combat, because it all get put through the prism of what makes sense narratively for what is going on... not because there is a "format" to how the game mechanics run combat.  Other people might run combats almost every time in this set pattern of mechanics because that's how they roll... which is cool.  More power to them.  That's not how I like doing mine though, so it rarely can be put down in that kind of official "format" for every case.Yup... the Assassinate thing was merely an example of what I feel got lost if I didn't run things from a narrative perspective.  Format-driven game mechanics dictating something can't happen even though the story being told says that it probably should.  The Surprise Round being dictated completely off of declared group DEX (Stealth) checks being another one.  I don't need active declarations of Stealth and rolls being made to be the only factor in figuring out whether a Surprise Round can happen... I let the story tell me whether or not a surprise attack can be made on either side.  If it makes sense within the narrative we are all creating together at the table... the game mechanics oftentimes be damned.</blockquote>

Verification