The Psychology of Initiative

[@SupergeekMike]

Is there anything else about initiative you’d like to see me talk about in a future video? Thanks so much to OnlyCrits for sponsoring this video! Visit www.onlycrits.com/supergeekmike and use the promo code SUPERGEEK at checkout! www.onlycrits.com/supergeekmike

[@annak1042]

I'd love to get a dice subscription and also to help your channel, but I don't see any option to enter a code at checkout on OnlyCrits-is the code part only for US purchasers or something like that?

[@pedrogarcia8706]

I'm confident I've heard Brennan Lee Mulligan say something like "This isn't combat but we're gonna resolve it in initiative order" or something like that on Dimension 20 at least once.

[@ffreed]

I’ve often done that to keep things orderly when cutting back and forth to PCs in different places, so I can keep tabs on who’s doing what without losing track of the characters. Like if a few characters are in a combat encounter while some of the PCs are elsewhere or busy with a project, I’ll include the characters not in combat in the turn order so I can cut to them and ask what they’re doing while the fight is happening.

[@outcastedOpal]

I use the 25-20, 19-15, etc. But i actually do it for a semi mechanical semi narrative reason. Everyone in those categories go at the same time technically so they get to work together. I find this is more fun than having everypne wait for their turn, especially for martials that simply just wait to roll attacks and then wait again. It encourages creativity, tactics, and teamwork. It might not be for everyone and depending on the circumstances ill opt for using regular initiative, but when it works its really fun.

[@davidgipe997]

Interesting andbNeat idea there! i may adapt this for my group. Something like "People within 5 initiative of each other can work together instead of readying an action." It can also all for dynamic descriptions and activities if foes or events are in the same initiative bracket.

[@twilightgardenspresentatio6384]

I like simultaneous initiative - requires a recap of all decisions involved but it feels like a sudden clash. Once you’re in, you’re in. Makes you think about your action before you dive into battle. Using this I resolve actions based on range. Longer weapons strike first in melee. Long range attacks launch first, missile attacks outside of close range are launched first but land last.

[@majorzipf8947]

This sounds really interesting! I’ve been thinking about changing up how I do narrative. When you say “work together” what exactly does that mean? Do you have everyone in that group tell you at the same time what they’re doing? Do you let them change it? Sorry for the many questions this just sounds like it could be really fun and less crunchy.

[@outcastedOpal]

@Major Zipf it encourages them to grapple for the benefit of others or for someone to get put of the way if someone needs to cast a spell or get in position for a sneak attack. Normal stuff but it makes it easier for them instead of thinking only about themselves. They talk with eachother to plan out how the want to do it.

[@TheLordofMetroids]

I think Matt's style of asking for initiative works if you have a bunch of players, when you have less than 6, asking each one in order will work far better.

[@tonyrigby6065]

Initiative happens when intent is declared. I like how "Level up: 5E advanced does it" does initiative, sometimes it is a skill check. Wanna do a sneak attack during an argument? Roll a deception check and everyone else rolls insight to see if they see it coming. Same thing with an ambush, stealth for the ambushers, perception for the people being jumped. It's really cool.

[@xerick5586]

I ask my players for their initiative the same way Matt does, which streamlines the start of a battle. I don't have to get each player's result "out of order" and then order it myself. I also like to use initiative "checks" when contested speed between characters comes up.

[@telarr9164]

Yeah i agree... the players just shouting their numbers at me as soon as i ask "roll initiative' is not helpful. The 25-20. 19-15 Matt Mercer method is an excellent way to organise it

[@TheLSpike]

I also do it the same way. Seems the most logical if youre gonna need everyone in order from highest to lowest. I guess you could also count down instead of doing it in increments of five. But all players shouting what their initiative is at once seems super annoying to me as a DM. So i really wonder why he finds it annoying how matt, and apperantly many other people, do it that way.

[@xerick5586]

@TheLSpike Roleplays I'm interested why as well. I'm sure he has a good reason, I just can't find the logic myself.

[@BryanCmpbll]

Same. It seems very efficient for integrating enemy and character initiative in a manageable way. Wonder what bugs him about it...

[@TheSpoegefugl]

I thought the idea of "25-20" etc. was really clever the first times I saw that. He has a good amount of players and sometimes a good amount of NPC's on the field as well. I feel like it's easier to divide it up into smaller chunks that are sorted, instead of sorting the whole mess of numbers at one time.

[@bludfyre]

You could even have a pre-printed sheet with those ranges boxed in and then fill it in as you go around. Or just have a sheet with the numbers and a line. So if Slim rolls a 17, you just put Slim in the 17 line. And if your Hobgoblin also had a 17, figure out who goes "first" and circle that one so you can remember 30 minutes later when it is the second or third round.

[@silversugar2140]

I'm sure someone else has brought this up, but I like how they now handle Initiative over on Arcane Arcade. You roll Initiative at the start of every game and it starts from the player who instigates a combat (or time-sensative scene) and proceeds as normal from there. It's a seamless integration that feels natutal to the game and still allows for everyone to make a turn. Simple and brilliant! (I believe credit goes to Colton for that one, who may have picked it up elsewhere, but my memory is hazy on that one.) It's what I'm going to do when I run DnD next and suggest it to all my DMs. I also love your idea for a numbered sheet just for organizational clarity as well! I'm shocked I nevet thought of that!

[@tylerdurso-finley2978]

Critical Role C2E104 is the perfect example of how rolling initiative can make your players believe 'the time for talking is over'

[@TheWordN3rd]

That's a good point about being clear why their rolling initiative. U can't remember whether it was in the examples you named or in C3, but I distinctly remember Matt saying, "Okay, there's a lot moving pieces rn so we're going to roll initiative so I can run this situation better" at least a couple of times. I never thought about why he would have been so explicit though.

[@johnathanrhoades7751]

He botched the explanation once in campaign 2 leading to an awkward/unwanted combat and learned from his mistakes 😅

[@TheWordN3rd]

@@johnathanrhoades7751 that strongly points to C3 then. Lol.

[@theargawalathing]

Calling for Initiative ranges is helpful with new players, who will all shout over each other what their rolls are.

[@SupergeekMike]

Just tell them you’ll ask for each initiative one at a time, and they don’t have to shout it out.

[@telarr9164]

I don't really see the problem with calling out initiative ranges ?

[@paulzhuromskyy1228]

@@SupergeekMike But then you have to write all scores down first, and then arrange them in order. It's easy to sort them as you write them down if you only deal with 2 or 3 initiative scores at a time.

[@SanderGoldman]

@@SupergeekMike The problem is then you either have to hold those numbers in your head before writing them down in order or you have to have a system of moving your list around after. Matt likes writing it down in pencil so he has to know which initiative rolls are gonna be at the top first so he can write them down in order right off the bat.

[@mirageowl]

Also Matt's gming for a table of 6-7 players while most dnd tables go for 3-4

[@Spark_Chaser]

to the "Pass the ball" initiative system: I've played in a few games with a system like this. I've not seen a pattern emerge for who acts when. It usually turns to a "who's action makes the most sense in the moment" as the momentum of the story shifts. This is anecdotal, to be sure, but it is what I've seen in various games like this.

[@outcastedOpal]

I think the way you explained it, pokemon is still exactly the best analogy. The stories are an after thought for the designers but theyre the only thing pushing the players forward. Just like how you said that dnd is combat first, so is pokemon.

[@geoffdewitt6845]

The reason I don't like rolling for initiative is because it feels like it "sharpens" the break from a non-combat scene into a combat scene. It's like, "The Big Bad reveals THEY killed your dad! They draw their cursed blade and begin to advance! Now let's put all this narrative tension on pause to compare who rolled highest."

[@earlylevelfountainquaffer]

Yeah, this is half the reason I use side-based initiative. Not having to roll for every single player makes things *so* much faster, in exchange for, ime, no real downside

[@Neophoia]

I usually have ties be resolved by dex score, and if that's a tie have them roll again to see who goes first of the ones that tied. I do however roll initiative for opponents before sessions, and have a document with that written down and just slot in the PC's initiative where that fits in that. If a player ties with an opponent, and has same dex score as opponent, I let the player go first. So far this has been working and caused the "roll for initiative" to be done in less than a minute at our table, which is great. But I also only have 4 players, and they are good at not speaking over each other (and my co-dm also help make things go even smoother). Also; I do tell players when I ask for initiative rolls if it's combat or time sensitive puzzle based. Because it's far better for them to know that they need to figure stuff out "quickly" in the game, and not find and incapacitate an opponent. I never do irl timers though, as that reduces fun for group. Instead I tell them how many rounds they have to solve it, which means they can actually talk about what they wanna do and not stress. Because some players struggle with panic attacks by being stressed, and in no way do I want to trigger that.

[@raymondharnack4160]

As a DM I have found that people who dislike initiative usually are also the people who want to take wildly abusive free actions/attacks outside of combat so they can “win” unless my players do really well on stealth or other forms of deceit in making them roll initiative

[@OccidentalAvian]

15:14 Relating to this, I distinctly remember in Campaign Two of Critical Role the party running into this kind of problem, in episode 2x104 "The Ruined Sliver". The party went to try to parlay with a group of wraiths, but for reasons even I don't understand, Matt had them roll initiative even though neither party were yet directly hostile to each other. However, once initiative was rolled, Marisha assumed that meant the wraiths were hostile and attacked them first since she was at the top of initiative. This wasn't helped by the fact that Beau's previous encounter with undead on the island, in which she wasn't immediately hostile, ended with her getting insta-KO's by a bodak. I even remember Matt kind of snarking at her later in the episode. It seemed though he later recognized the mistake and apologized on twitter for mishandling the situation.

[@goldkomodo26]

I agree with your point that asking for initiative can put the players in a certain mindset. "Forget everything you know except [combat] and breathing." When I DM, I always try to let a scene between PCs and enemy's play out naturally, so they still feel like they can solve the confrontation through other non-violent means. Once combat is inevitable, I usually let my players each take one action to do something to prepare for the fight (bonus action rage, cast bless on the party, etc.), but as soon as somebody on either side tries to attack or target an enemy with a harmful effect, we roll initiative. It makes a big difference!

[@TheLordofMetroids]

One thing I've experimented in doing is when we're in a dungeon is ask for 4 or so initiative rolls at the beginning of the session, Sometimes we won't use them all, sometimes we will need more, but sometimes I like the idea of saying something like: "As your group rounds the corner you see four goblins standing there with crossbows raised, but your strategy worked, they are facing the door on the left, you came out parallel to them, Raven, you react first, what do you do?" It works very well in a VTT, or a theater of the mind game (though you would have to describe it better than I did, there)

[@bludfyre]

I like that approach! You don't need to slow the narrative down by doing the initiative rolls "in the moment" and it also isn't as clear of a "we're in combat" signal.

[@johnathanrhoades7751]

I love this and tried it a few times, but there’s something about the ritual of rolling for initiative that my table missed. But if that isn’t a concern, this is an amazing way to have a smooth narrative flow. You can even re-roll after the combat for the next combat if you’ve gone through your prepared initiatives.

[@piderman871]

7:50 I suspect he asks for initiative values in that way so that he can more easily order them on paper (you can clearly see him write down each value). If the orders are completely random he'd have to leave large gaps in between values to write any other player or monster that might announce their initiative later, or remember each value and sort in his head. By grouping the values by 5 he knows there are only a few possible values. This is 100% conjecture btw but also totally something I would do myself.

[@danielbeshers1689]

Yeah, I think it's an outgrowth of running games with 6-8 PCs on the regular. It's easier to order things if they are coming in partially pre-sorted. I do a little bit hate that the groupings overlap on the endpoints, though. If the first group is 20 or higher, the second group is only 15-19. #MathWrath

[@SupergeekMike]

This is absolutely true, but it would be so easy for him to just print off a list from 25 to -5 and ask for everyone’s number one at a time. It’s so much more efficient than the current process, it just drives me crazy.

[@ed-chivers]

I've started using Matt's method at my table, purely because it makes it easier to write things down. It's as simple as that :)

[@danielbeshers1689]

@@SupergeekMike When playing in person I use Card Initiative, with one card for each PC and a card for each NPC initiative turn. When a turn gets taken, move that card to the bottom of the stack. That makes it harder to lose track of whose turn it is if something distracts from the game and by putting the cards in sleeves it makes it easy to note things like start/end of turn saves and effect durations in dry erase markers.

[@telarr9164]

I am sure that Matt's method is done partly for the audience as well. "who is going first (eg 25-20). Ok cool Liam's character is first. Who is next (19-15) ? etc "

[@Cassapphic]

Combat does feel like a very different part of the game, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing "roll for initiative" can have the same vibe as the iconic lead in that starts the battle theme in the old final fantasy games, an almost comforting way to build tension as you know upon hearing that the game is shifting into a very different state that requires a different approach, but as mentioned in the video, only really works if pure combat is the goal for the scene.

[@mxsnowdropcoworking]

I'm only a bit into the video currently but I will say on your gripe about how Mercer asks for initiative - I don't get why HE does it. Critical Role (for the most part) has their games run in person, with everyone at the table. Picking voices out of cross-talking is for some reason way easier in person, and to me there's also nothing stopping him from going around the table clockwise to get everyone's initiative roll. HOWEVER, it has been incredibly useful in the games I've played in, particularly the campaign I've just begun to DM as we have 6 players, all interacting over zoom. The order of everyone's cameras isn't the same for each person, so I can't just start clockwise and go from there. While I could call out names going clockwise based on what's on MY screen, for me it's quicker and easier to do the 25-20 etc etc thing to sort everyone out

[@projab]

i often use initiative when players are exploring a closed space with a full map, like a dungeon or a big house, since it makes it more fun if they decide to split up and happen to find enemies with some people missing. also makes it easier for me to simulate what happens if they make enough noise for enemies to notice them and begin the search. and if a fight ends with the enemies or players fleeing, it's more of a surprise for the players to find them again if they never exit initiative.

[@mallenwho]

My favourite character is a ranger Gloom Stalker. Their key class ability is to combine their dex AND wis modifiers for rolling initiative. So it's not too hard to have a +7 or +8 to initiative. I do see this as flavourful. While many characters merely react to combat once it has started (to varying abilities and speeds), the gloom stalker is reading the room and anticipating a combat may be about to begin. It's spider senses tingling. It feels so badass to consistently go first in combat, and to be so capable specidically on the first turn of combat (other gloom stalker features)

[@marcuselias4412]

I'm fairly ignorant of alternate rulesets and systems, but I introduced an initiative order for 'out of combat' in my online sessions at the start of the session or beginning of a scene like entering a dungeon or city, etc. Each player and npc that enters the scene rolls one, which I pre-roll or keep hidden when necessary. It's worked really well for us imo - quieter players enjoy that they get an equal part even with louder players involved. It serves as a marching order, keeps things organized and fast, and lets the game as a whole function with procedure in mind. So if I call for actual initiative, it's because someone is actively beginning combat and the transition feels much more natural.

[@troikas3353]

There’s an event in C2’s Travelercon arc that is on the other side of this as, at least to me, a clear example of how calling for initiative at the wrong time when combined with a tense situational context can be a bad idea. Keeping it Vague; In this instance the party had trudged through a wilderness where they randomly encountered a strange, ominous but not initially overtly threatening creature and the party approached non-hostily out of curiosity. The result of that curiosity unfortunately was a party member getting surprise attacked and nearly one-shot as they triggered an unexpected and tough combat against undead. This set the stage for the later iissue; After this event, upon reaching their destination, and after ascending a decrepit tower that itself was insinuated to be part of a chunk of the Shadowfell pulled into the Prime planes, they encountered another group of undead creatures. Mat had the group start by talking to these ostensibly evil beings but also called for initiative almost immediately during the conversation before any hostile action was taken, which resulted in the party attacking them. It turned out Matt had actually intended these to be potential allies for another upcoming fight and this to be a diplomatic challenge with a potential to go bad, but everything surrounding the context of the event screamed warning signs to a player group already repeatedly burned by betrayals and surprise attacks and the call for initiative set them off. It’s one of the clearest instances in CR of both the importance of conveying the intent of a situation and of the dangers that can occur if you have a group thats come to expect certain things because of your patterns as a dm.

[@RobearRich]

I really liked the part about setting expectations for why initiative is being rolled. I think there is an impulse as a DM to not want to break immersion by explaining why you are doing something mechanically. However, after your explanation and examples I think that is something I will start implementing in my games. A small break in immersion to help clarify the purpose of something and align expectations definitely sounds more worth it.

[@GhostLesbianWizard]

I think matt's way of asking for initiative is much easier for some people. You ask for initiative already ordered and is much quicker. If you don't have a lot players, of course, easier to ask one on one, otherwise this method is just easier to many people

[@TheWordN3rd]

I actually found calling out 25-20, 15, 10, to really helpful in my DMing. It might be because I'm new, but it's mostly probably bc I have ADHD and so having initiatives yelled out randomly means we have to go over it multiple times. Calling it out in ranges gives it structure and allows me to write it down when I'm ready.

[@lkriticos7619]

I think the main thing about initative is that has to fit the system and the kind of game you want to play. The D&D way of doing it works when you've got a game that expects there to be a lot of combat and for combat to be long. Whereas the Vampire Masquerade V5 rule book tells you to cut conflict short after.... I think it was three rounds without a clear victor? I honestly can't remember how initative works in that game despite having played combat. The more narrative focus meant that what I remember is the clutch shot at the werewolves, and how fast the combat was compared to D&D. I've played a few systems that decide initative by stats and I felt like it worked well in those games. But combat was also a lot shorter and more brutal in those games. I guess what I'm saying is I like the D&D initative system in D&D. I'm not sure I would in a different kind of game.

[@themicahnism]

I love the initiative ranges that Matt uses, my players have expressed they prefer it to just calling out their scores over each other. I’d be interested to hear what your gripe with it is.

[@johnathanrhoades7751]

From another of his responses and also the way I like to do it, you print off or write down a list of numbers from 25 to 0 beforehand and ask one at a time around the table, writing down the character’s name at the appropriate number.

[@Xylarxcode]

@@johnathanrhoades7751 To me, Matt's way makes more sense, because I run down my initiative list from top to bottom. So I start at the top and ask for 25-20 and then work my way down, same way he does on the show, so that I get the initiative numbers in a neat order instead of just getting a bunch of random numbers thrown at me. You don't have to strictly organize everything in your games, but some structure in things that come up a lot (like initiative rolls, obv), streamlining the process to suit your style works better than just leaving it in chaos.

[@dolphin64575]

Love hearing your thoughts on the psychological aspect of certain game mechanics ❤️

[@melinnamba]

I like how Jason Carl handels initiative for the vampire: the masquerade actual plays LA by nicht and NY by night. It's probably a lot less practical for dnd, but I still think it's worth mentioning here. He starts with saying "multiple things are happening at once" and then he goes around the table and asks every player for their intentions for the next moments. After that he resolves those intentions in a way that flows well with the narrative, usually starting with action that have the least impact on other players intentions. He allows players to adjust their intended actions, but that's always done from a basis of the original intent. It's really elegant and keeps the flow of the narrative going. The first few episodes I wachted I barely noticed the group had entered combat before it was already over. Again, it probably works that well partly because the system they play is v:tm. But incorporating mechanic from different systems can make your game better, if you do it in the right situations. This particular one, I think, works best for short scenes and small groups.

[@horus486153]

i think of initiative narratively as that jolt of adrenaline right before a fight breaks out. So when the "tense moment to fight" transition happens, instead of giving them a free action, I call for initiative right away, and the instigating action happens on that player's turn. that way, if the bad guy gets a turn, it's narratively like they were fast enough to react and maybe take the dodge action before the fireball hits their general vicinity. I also frame every player turn before the instigating one as "your buddy just knocked an arrow into their bow and seems INTENT to shoot, what do you do?" idk i kinda like it, gives a bit of a chaotic feel to the first round at the table

[@MorningDusk7734]

Finally got into a campaign a few weeks ago, and had our first boss encounter yesterday. We were facing off against 2 guards and the head of a slave camp. He spent most of the fight hiding while we fought the guards, and near the end he made a bolt for the door. I naturally assumed it would be dangerous for him to get away, so I used my only spell slot (level 1 warlock) to cast Witch Bolt, thinking we had at least 3 rounds left based on the rhythm of the fight. Then, halfway through the next round, before it got to my turn again, the DM dropped initiative and played out a scene where an NPC entered and killed the leader in front of us, revealing that who we thought was working for the leader was actually a turncoat working for the resistance. It felt a little anticlimactic after all that, and I wish it was better telegraphed that it wasn't our job to kill the head of the camp, I would have used my spell slot earlier when I could have gotten a better moment out of a spell that's supposed to last multiple rounds in combat. It's something that I'm going to be talking with my DM about, as it definitely felt weird when they said we were dropping out of initiative when one guy was still alive and running.

[@mnm1273]

B/X initiative rules flow so smoothly, one turn for each party with orders based on combat style used, because it's the full party it doesn't have any major issue of being stuck into a choice. I've played B/X with one player controlling 7 PCs and it still flowed far faster and felt more intense than the many 5e combats I'd with the same guy and with far more planning. I don't know if it is for everyone, I don't know how well it meshes with narrative centric games where death is rare, but it's definitely very fun.

[@ReignOfHazards]

ICRPG, by Runehammer, uses the concept of "always in turns'. Its a mentality that, regardless of combat, exploration or social encounters, the GM keeps all the players engaged by constantly shifting the focus from one player to the next in all phases of the game. It makes the shift to "combat" much more fluid. Personally, I've been DMing since 1979, and my style has evolved in a similar manner. I keep a stack of cards with PC's names on them behind my screen and work my way through them, allowing each player to take their turn in a random order. When finished with the stack, I'll shuffle them, adding any nearby monsters' or NPCs' cards into the stack. Yes, it eliminates "inititaitive build" characters, weakens "dex builds", etc., etc... but it makes the game run smooth and the tension in the air when I shuffle the cards is palpable in certain situations. My players love it. Thanks for the thought provoking video!

[@emroden6670]

Oh, I needed this. I have a whole party of new players who are having a hard time with the combat mechanics. I think I'm calling for initiative too early!

[@andrewjustice210]

My table has initiative rolls when we have an obvious fight in front of us, however, in situations where it could go any number of ways, our DM will call for an Action Order, so we don’t “lock the doors” as you say

[@davidgipe997]

@SuperGeekMike just want to say I enjoy these videos and the commenters. This is even more proof that the "Master" in Game Master is like a black belt and one can always learn new things or inspirations. For context I have been DM\GMing for 20ish years.

[@jeffcooper5138]

I think something that needs to be addressed is the assumptions we make about how dnd plays based on our character sheets and based on how much of the core rule books are devoted to different subjects. If you had never heard of dnd and found the DMG, PHB, and MM on the street and decided to pick it up, it would be hard to blame you for coming away with the assumption that combat should be a large part of any dnd game. Most of the features players get from either their class or subclass are oriented toward combat. A large portion of the PHB deals with combat rules, as well as the DMG. And the Monster Manual is nearly *exclusively* for combat alone. But that isn’t to do with how important combat should be or how prevalent it should be. It’s to do with how dang hard it is to create a cohesive rule set that supports combat, let alone one that supports magical combat. It will necessarily require dozens of pages to explain. Combat is where the most interactions happen in the shortest period of time and the stakes are usually much higher than the rest of the game. It’s okay to have slightly vague rules on things that don’t result in character death. And boy howdy did Wizards embrace that mentality with all sorts of other mechanics. Anyhow, the largest portions of rulebooks go toward the topics that are most complex to explain and/or difficult to interpret via rules.

[@MrVotiga]

I'm running a group of 6 right now, and I use initiative a lot to help keep everyone involved in actions. But I've only asked for an initiative roll when the situation seems hostile. I try to stress that in this game not every fight can be won, and we're playing with Milestone XP so no "corpse farming". I also am vocal about allowing non-combat actions in combat. Last session while in initiative: a player rescued some children from a windmill while the rest of the party clashed with monsters, and a separate fight ended after the first round because of a fantastic persuasion roll that the other players leaned into.

[@johnathanrhoades7751]

For non combat situations when it needs to be sort of initiative (when it’s important to give everyone an opportunity to act) I just go left to right (or right to left when I’m feeling feisty) around the table asking what each character does. My preferred system is the optional side-based initiative from the DMG with a roll each round to see if players of NPC’s go first, but that’s not for everyone. My favorite “normal” initiative system is that I have a list of numbers on a piece of paper from 25 down to 1 and then ask around the table in order. So much easier than Matt’s way 😅 Initiative ties are broken by dex bonus if needed.

[@SupergeekMike]

I do the same with the paper, it’s SO much easier than Matt’s way! Lol

[@seattlelaine]

Interesting, I actually have my players roll initiative during a tense scene, like a mexican standoff, or if negotiations have gone poorly - before combat has started. This has always been my way of increasing the tension since combat could break out at any moment if the players are unable to diffuse the situation.

[@ernesthakey3396]

What I do (in 3.5, could translate to 5e) if someone wants to start something when other players and NPCs aren't expecting it, is to make it a possible surprise round. Even if everyone is aware of everyone else, someone starting a fight could take others by surprise, but maybe not take everyone by surprise. So the PC or NPC that is starting the fight will get to act - but everyone else needs to determine if they notice that character suddenly starting something. In 5e, you might have the initiating character first make a deception check to set the DC for their ability to get the jump on everyone. All the other characters would then make perception checks. At that point, the initiator and everyone who beat the deception DC with their perception check roll initiative, and act in initiative order in round 1, while those who failed their perception check count as surprise and don't get to roll initiative yet. Once round 1 is done, the remaining characters on both sides then get to roll initiative, so everyone can act on round 2. This means it is possible, especially for someone with a good deception roll followed by a good initiative roll, for the initiator to get the jump on everyone, with perhaps a few others reacting quickly enough to act on round 1 after them - but it is also possible for the initiator (with poorer rolls) to betray their intentions and merely snarl and start to draw their weapon or start to cast their spell only to have several other characters, both allies and enemies, leap into action even faster. That's partway between letting one character get the first action and then everyone rolls for the next round, and the "okay, everyone roll initiative" idea that makes combat seemingly inevitable. It can even lead to the initiator starting to act but an ally reacts quickly and for their action they grab the initiator and stop them from attacking...

[@reedgordon5388]

Hmm. Interesting. I've never thought to ask this question before.

[@BooneyianLogic]

Hey super geek. I'm a huge fan thanks for all the hard work on these videos. I wanted to ponder on why Matt mercer does initiative as 25-20, and so forth. I'm not sure why he would but when I was watching this something was saying to me "what if it has something to do with how he takes notes" or the method he uses to track initiative.

[@alexanderchippel]

Whenever there is a tie, I just tell my players that they could choose who goes first, and every time they just default to who has the higher Dexterity. If it's a tie between a party member and the NPC/Monster, who goes first is usually just based on who is side has more turns.

[@Paxladar]

When I want to create stress or if the PCs have implemented a complex plan I have them set up a out of combat initiative order for themselves. They pick the order and I have the opposing side go at the start and end of that order. They seem to like it as it keeps them from stepping on each other and makes them think about who should be going first. Combat is standard rolls for placement.

[@KickyFut]

Something I have seen with Mercer, which is rare but happens, is he asks for people to roll for "turn order". If you notice, he refrained from saying the word "initiative" because those sequences are not specific to a fight happening, but he wanted to have some organization of who would do what in an organized manner. The key to this whole issue, *especially* if you as the DM did not have the intention of a fight and you want them to think of a different way to resolve something, you should just not say the word "Initiative". Just use the words "turn order" when multiple people are all trying to do something at the same time, and let them use their bonuses if they apply. STR, AGI, EVA, etc.

[@ilfardrachadi2318]

Things I do to assist my players do more than just combat once initiative has rolled: Allow an action to initiate a conversation with a few back and forth responses - if they can only get a sentence out, and no one knows what the response will be till the NPC has their turn, they're all just gonna whack it some more. If the NPC responds favourably to an attempt to talk further, the rest of the party tend to take their cue from that and refrain from attacking further - which is something the NPC notes and is appreciative of. I've played with DMs who insist on no more than six words per round, and I've never seen one of their combats get resolved with words. Have my NPCs be prepared to use their actions to converse as well - actions are precious, if my NPCs aren't going to 'lose' their attack opportunity to talk if they're properly engaged, then my PCs certainly aren't going to put themselves at a disadvantage by doing it. Related to this, I can use the lack of an attack of opportunity to advance the narrative. When a Dire Wolf had been talked down with a Speak With Animals and began circling the speaker, I prompted the other players as to whether they wanted to make their opportunity attack or not as it moved past them. When no one attacked, the wolf accepted an offering of food and retreated. No one WANTS to die, not even NPCs, and quite often the initial clash of combat is enough to give a pretty good idea of which side is likely to live to fight another day. There are times you want to kill everyone, leave no witnesses, but if at all possible I try to make sure my players know that talking is always an option. Sometimes a throwaway NPC has ended up being fleshed out and incorporated into the story purely based on how my players have interacted with them while trying to avoid further bloodshed - they take conversations places that I hadn't planned, and it's a way better place than I could have thought up on my own.

[@manueltorresart2345]

Ok, I think I understood wrong the surprise round and now I need to correct my way of doing things.

[@outcastedOpal]

Most people do

[@413Jesse]

ORE has the weirdest and most interesting initiative system I have ever played. It starts with all characters announcing their intention on reverse wisdom order, so someone with a higher wisdom can see attacks coming. Then everyone rolls simultaneously and the order of resolution is resolved by your action roll.

[@athenaleonard1046]

Thought I’d share a personal experience from a recent combat. We knew we were going into combat, we all collectively planned to charge the big seige monster that was destroying buildings in the distance, and we had a chance to do one prep thing (someone activated their flametongue sword, I as a barbarian drank a giant strength potion). But then we rolled initiative, and we were all still a decent amount over 100 ft away from the monster. Me and one other player rolled lower than everyone else including the monster and increasingly dangerous environmental hazards. Next to none of us had much in the way of ranged options, so the first round was spent mainly on getting over there, which felt really disjointed when people were moving hundreds of feet, horseback or otherwise, one or two at a time. By the time it was my turn, the paladin’s summoned horse had melted in lava, two of us were knocked prone by the monster, and one more was unconscious by a super rough critical hit. It felt super weird to essentially be standing still for several seconds, then finally running over and seeing all this carnage. Probably something that could’ve been dealt with by allowing us to get at least a bit closer before rolling initiative, but I’m not sure. Distance and movement speed and allowing others to move with you can be pretty tricky and considering who does and doesn’t have ranged options can be pretty tricky I think.

[@GregMcNeish]

I developed my own combat system for the rules-free (mostly rules-free) roleplaying I run, specifically to execute the style of combat that I enjoy, which is based more around the idea of the characters having to execute a coordinated action sequence or some other problem solving cinematics rather than a wargame with like, order and rules and stuff. I wanted to add dynamism to turn order, while allowing the sort of table-talk planning that can be so much fun, so came up with this system: Every turn, each player rolls a D20, while the GM rolls a D20 for each monster/group/other. For ease, I have one colour of dice for the GM, and the players can't use dice of that colour. The dice are then arranged in numerical order and the turn progresses from highest to lowest, and then I like to give the players 60 seconds (more or less at my discretion, often not tracked but adjudicated by feel) to freely discuss whatever it is they want to do. Once that is finished, the turn progresses from highest number to lowest, but importantly the die each player rolled is NOT associated with their character. The player dice are shared, and each player will get a turn on one of the dice, but who actually goes when isn't determined until that turn is about to begin and a player who hasn't gone physically grabs the die from the table. The rule I have is that they have 5 seconds for someone to pick up the die or else it is skipped and moved to the end of the round. Once a player picks up the die, nobody but that player and the GM are allowed to talk until their turn is over. For GM dice, sometimes I have different dice for minions & lackeys than big bosses, but usually I leave it open to choose in the moment who I want to go next, for dramatic purposes. Sometimes environmental/lair effects happen on turn order dice. Sometimes I keep extra dice hidden from the players so that I can drop a surprise on them in the middle of a round. Whatever the situation calls for. That's the whole beauty of playing a game that has "more like guidelines than actual rules." Does this potentially make combat move slowly? Yes, absolutely. If I want to run something faster, I won't do this full combat setup, but maybe roll it like a skill challenge, or a free form "scene" (ala Mercer's escape/chases). It's something that I *CAN* use when I want to run a big movie scene fight. Because as Gary Gygax famously mused, we don't actually need the rules to play the game....

[@geoffdewitt6845]

I like the suggestion to let the character who initiated combat act quickly before the combat structure goes into effect.

[@TwilitbeingReboot]

Ready Action is a player's best friend when the details of initiative order become a little too restrictive. That said, perhaps I'll offer this to my players: Whenever initiative gets rolled, the PCs roll first. Then any player can choose to subtract any whole number from their initiative score, letting them arrange their turns how they like. Think of it as the party having good group cohesion, with the quicker characters waiting to act at just the right time. Once they've settled on an order, they're locked in until initiative ends. _Then_ the enemies roll.

[@chuckjones7092]

I think that a way you can avoid the "Mindset lock" that comes from rolling initiative, it might be beneficial to simply call it something different. For example, differentiating between "structured" vs. "unstructured" time, with initiative simply being a way of determining the order of actions in Structured time where it is important to keep track of when people are moving i.e. combat, a race etcetera. In unstructured time, players would be more free to act in any order they want, i.e. Pre-combat positioning and preparation, sneaking around places. Most players would be familiar with the concept, even if they don't use the terminology, and it helps break the "initiative roll" from being tied so heavily to combat. If your players are struggling, you could try to have some sessions where initiative is used to do some other time sensitive, non-combat related things. Maybe they need to pull someone out of a sunken ship before they drown, or they have to touch lodestones in a dungeon in a certain order and time to open a door.

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

How I explain initiative is just who's faster to act during a round... Like in my game system each round takes place over a minute and how many AP you have. And it's how good you are at acting in that time frame like if you have 20 AP your 20 times better at multitasking/running in a minute then a guy with 1AP. Initiative in D&D is much the same way it simulates who has well the initiative more to less.

[@rowens.yarnings]

I sometimes just ask my players for a dexterity check if what i actually want is initiative but I don't want them to get in the mindset that they're now in combat. It's functionally the same especially if they all have the same dex. Like if the barbarian and the wizard have conflicting plans, we'll just see who's quicker to act this time around.

[@TheRavenLilian]

That was some really good advice. Thank you.

[@SupergeekMike]

Glad it was helpful!

[@veraxiana9993]

Wow this really opened my eyes and gave me new ideas. Im thinking of implementing the rule where initiative is for both combat and situations in which combat is significantly possible. If i were to say ever possible then we'd be in initiative 24\7 bc at any point hypothetically a player can just attack another and start a fight. It gives a lot of benefits, in tense scenes often times the majority of the players will stay quiet and let one person take the lead but setting up that tense exchange as an initiative situation gives players a higher incentive to contribute as they wouldnt want to do nothing and "waste their turn' so to speak.

[@bludfyre]

The only concern I have is that calling for initiative kinda "cues" the players that the situation has progressed into combat. Here's an example: The party is negotiating with a semi-hostile NPC to obtain passage through a portal. The players have made a few bad rolls, which has ratcheted up the tension. A few of them are trying to interact all at the same time, so the DM calls initiative to try to prevent players shouting over each other. One of the players who hasn't been paying super close attention, or doesn't have a high charisma score, goes first. That player may just attack the NPC, because initiative was called and that means the time for talking is over.

[@kaip6264]

By my own experience, calling for initiative in non-combat situations can work - if you start doing so relatively regularly early on. Once you have conditioned your players over the course of some years of play that, yes, if they roll for initiative that means they are in combat, you shouldn't be astonished that they react bellicose once the I-word is called. This conditioning works for other situations as well - we had such a situation a few weeks ago when our DM 'complained' that we were very trigger-happy and why we didn't try getting information from an imp without a fight. Well, we had tried various times before to reason with opponents classically categorized as being 'evil' (Orcs, Demons, Kobolds, ... you get the jist), and all but the one time when the story called for it (and thus we were approached by the opposing group), any attempt at diplomacy was shut down. So yes, we learned to shoot first, (possibly) interrogate the one survivor later, but that's on him.

[@christianpoulsen4164]

A thing I find annoying dealing with is Surprise and when a player or enemy cannot be surprised, and they roll top of the initiative. So they know something is about to happen, but cannot see any of the attackers cause they haven't gone yet. What I usually do is just say, you know something is about to happen, but cannot see anyone yet, which feels lack luster, and usually ends up being the player holding an action or taking the dodge action.

[@undeathghost5627]

To be fair, SuperGeekMike mentioned in this video the thing that will often fix this problem. The thing that caused the initiative roll should just be immediately resolved before you even start initiative. That way there is no confusion for the "unsurprisable" character in that first round. If they roll exceptionally high it even simulates something you see in a lot of fantasy books/movies where the "quick to react" person actually puts themselves in a lot of danger because they reacted so quickly that the other threats (that didn't trigger the surprise) didn't always present themselves. It's not perfect, but most situations you are referring to will be solved by this simple "1 action that starts the initiative".

[@KristiansBrain]

In Fate of Cthulhu when a player finishes their turn they get to choose who goes next until everyone has acted in the round. This means eventually the players have to give the enemies a turn, and if they make them go last it means the GM is picking who goes first in the next round, so it might as well be the enemies. I only recently got it so haven't played it yet but it sounds really interesting.

[@Woodclaw]

A few years ago I took a game design course and one of the things that turned out was that, according to our teacher, Initiavive was a very late addition to the game of D&D. In the early stages of the game, there was no universal system to track who goes first, which lead to confusion and arguments. The initiative system included in first edition was, mostly, the formalization of some conventional wisdom that emerged from the playtest. I'm not a fan of the initiative system as written, not because it activates a "minigame" (to be fair any system that goes beyond the basic check resolution can be labelled a minigame), but because it creates an artificial order that causes a lot of rethinking on the fly, pushing players to react to the situation instead of controlling it. I consider both valid approach to gaming, but I prefer my players to be proactive instead of reactive.

[@SUPERAWESOMENINJASAM]

are you there, algorithm? it's me, a fan of supergeekmike. pls promote this video. it includes critical thought the likes of which this platform has never seen

[@starscream71288]

I am now really curious why you don't like Matt's method of calling for initiative. I think it helps him organize a very large group of people and potentially several of his own rolls.

[@johnathanrhoades7751]

From another of his comments and also the way I do it, print off or write down a list of numbers from 25 to 0 and then ask for each person’s initiative in turn writing it down at the appropriate number.

[@redknight808]

I play Hero System, a crunchy ruleset that measures time in 1-second increments. Every character acts 2 to 4 times in a 12-second turn (or a lot more if superheroic). Certainly not for most, but the time spent on "initiative" is the time it takes me to mark the NPC Speeds onto the Speed Chart. Like, 5 seconds and done. Hero is slower in every other way, but when I play D&D, initiative always seems like a slow, sloppy mess to me.

[@docb2049]

once you rule initiative it is extremely hard to run (and keep all member of the party alive) and against legendary creature, running is just a suicide. a creature with normal 30 speed but 3 legendary action can do 150 in a single round, this outrun pretty much all fast martials (rogue with bonus action dash 90, barbarian 80, monk 120 with step of wind). running is simply a privilege reserved to magic user with instantaneous movement, polymorph/fly (to become unreachable) and haste/ expeditious retreat (haste alone on 30 speed wizard will fail).

[@undeathghost5627]

As an experienced DM I respect the message you're trying to convey because it can be true for a lot of the "obvious" legendary creatures (notably Dragons, vampires, etc). However, not all legendary creatures get to move with legendary actions. In addition, many that do get to move have restrictions to how that movement functions or it is simply slower than the creatures actual speed. This is actually half-true for dragons because unless your DM made a custom one most dragons have "Half movement but it can knock ppl prone when it takes off". It is infact not going its full speed. The problem with dragons (rightfully so for this discussion) is that they both fly and generally just have a much faster speed than PCs. So half of a dragon's speed *will* outrun a party. You're sentiment is still very true though. The legendary creatures that have any movement at all (halved or not) are really hard to outrun if you're counting their legendary actions into the chase. This is actually why my strategy to dealing with the inherant problems with this myself are to impose a "never repeat legendary actions" mindset. I make sure my legendary creature (pre-made or not) has at least 3 or 4 options to pick from and unless all other options make no sense at all I will never repeat the same legendary action - even if it would be the most "intelligent" one for the creature to use. This also doubles as a way to keep the combat diverse and interesting instead of just "Lich casts spell again", "Dragon breathes again", "vampire moves and attacks you again", etc.

[@dgthunderer]

I always reward the character who strikes first by automatically putting them at the top of the initiative order. They don't get an extra attack, but they do go first because.... they did go first. I think it's a good reward without being too strong.

[@MrSlutzkin]

Another alternative could be giving them advantage on their initiative roll

[@Xylarxcode]

I tried this once with my group. Did not work. The backlash was immense. Their biggest argument against it was: 'What's to stop anyone from shouting *I hit the enemy!* just so they can go first in combat? If combat is initiated, they should roll initiative just like anyone else and their action shouldn't be treated as the first attack, but rather as the first intention to open hostility.' They did kind of have a point, tbh. The few times I tried it, there was a lot of shouting over each other going on to hit the enemy just so they could get the first action in combat. Maybe your group is more well behaved or orderly, though.

[@dgthunderer]

@@Xylarxcode Yeah, different group dynamics. It does depend on the situation though. If they're talking with someone and it's clear a fight might break out then it's always straight initiative even if someone tries to initiate it. What I stated above is most effective when either they're hiding, but the enemy knows they're nearby (and thus is not surprised), or if it's a social encounter where the enemy does not anticipate a fight starting. So I guess it's sort of a partial surprise round for when they're on guard, but not completely ready.

[@kylethomas9130]

If the party splits, I tend to take initiative. As a player, I rarely take initiative as a greenlight to kill all targets, Barbarian Diplomat is my new favorite playstyle.

[@MrGreensweightHist]

if you want to avoid teh diagonal distance issue, use hex grids

[@pmvaun]

What is the problem with the 25-20, 20-15 method that Matt uses in CR? I only play online so our rolls just pop up for me on Roll20, but I assumed his method worked well with an in person session.

[@outcastedOpal]

Hes basically sayin that its unnecessary and has no purpose so hes annoyed by it. He things, "its the same as asking each player individually like i do, so why arent they doing it like i do".

[@undeathghost5627]

I am not SuperGeekMike and what I am saying is purely conjecture based on my own experiences. I believe his view is simply that it would be more efficient to just ask each person their initiatives around the table and then order them later. While I do think this is going to be more effective in the average DnD tables size (usually 3 - 4 players). What he is overlooking is that Critical Role's (and others like myself, whom runs a group of 6) party is rather large at 7 players. This in conjunction with medium - large encounter sizes (in number of separate initiatives) can make it very hard to order these efficiently and quickly without pre-grouping them in some way. Matt's method is to call for ranges so that he can write them down and order them. This works especially well at his table because the players (most notably Marisha and Travis) like to keep track of the initiative themselves as well to be better prepared for their turns - a good habit that I encourage for all tables.

[@Ckapter]

Wait… you don’t like asking for 20-25, 15-19, etc, for Initiative? How do you do it then? My tables are chaos if I don’t ask for initiative order like this.

[@SupergeekMike]

I have a sheet of numbers from 25 to -5, and then I ask everyone their initiative one at a time and write them down next to the number.

[@CLNCJD94]

My DM gives us initiative cards that we write down what we rolled and give back to him. Streamlines real quick figuring out turns

[@geoffdewitt6845]

I just sort of assume all the players go at once, and then all the monsters, absent special cases (ambushes, etc.).

[@avengingblowfish9653]

The problems I generally have with initiative is when fights stop and start up again or when things are happening in the background. I have seen modules that say, the boss tries to talk to the players to stall them and then after 3 rounds reinforcements arrive… how the heck do you actually run that in practice?

[@mirageowl]

Its also the other way around in the sense that Pokemon, and early JRPGs were turn based because they were trying to be like DnD

[@TheMichaellathrop]

I'm curious other than initiative and hit points are there any other rules from Chainmail that have made it into 5 edition D&D with little to know change? I've always thought that ties in initiative should be resolved by raw die roll rather than dex bonus/ total bonus as the characters with a higher bonus will go first more often anyway and the die roll is representing some combination of attention paid and circumstantial factors. One resolution to the instigator gets a free action could be to let the instigator go at the first initiative in the first round and then act on their rolled initiative starting in round two, I have been in a group where people who beat them on initiative just don't get to go in round one and it suck. On rule I really liked in 3.0rd edition was that holding action let you drop your initiative to any point below your own that you wanted it to be so long as that was lower than your current initiative, but that change would last for the rest of combat.

[@biggrayalien4791]

I find trying to force diagonal movement to be 5-10-5-10... to be pretty worthless in the long run. It's not as if players who have a lot of movespeed can't already outmaneuver any enemy, and it's not like enemies can't do the same thing. The only time where the math really screws up is in distances larger than 200x200 squares. Which, if you've got a map that big, idk how you fit it on a table. Most battles I see are within 50x50 squares or smaller. There is no advantage to moving diagonal that isn't counteracted by the fact that everyone else can do it, too. It's all arbitrary at the end of the day.

[@dwdillydally]

💡 What about having players call for initiative? How could that change the dynamics? Or would it even change? 🤔

[@gingerwithglasses]

Interaction with video !

[@lefterismplanas4977]

You didn't talk about it in the video, but you still dissed Mat asking for initiative the way he does (aka 25-20 20-15 etc.) What's your reason for dunking on that?

[@SupergeekMike]

I’ll talk more about it in a future video, but it’s really inefficient and easily leads to confusion at the table. People miss their range when it passes, folks have to say their number multiple times as Matt arranges them in the range, sometimes they still get skipped in the first round - it’s just a really flawed system.

[@SanderGoldman]

Ok but Inspiration represents inspiration. Like the idea of being inspired to do better by something external. The in-fiction explanation is right in the name. Its the same as bardic inspiration just not coming from a bard.

[@SupergeekMike]

I don’t know if I agree; the reason you get Inspiration in 5e is due to your role playing lining up with your traits, especially if it doesn’t benefit you. And in OneD&D they’re trying a version where humans just get inspiration whenever they wake up; I just don’t think they know what they want to do with it.

[@yuza1032]

I'd have to disagree with the idea that Matthew Mercer's way of doing initiative doesn't make sense and is inefficient. I don't need to use it because I play with a two person party but it looks like a really useful way to cut down on crosstalk while allowing people to still chat and stay organized. In my experience as a DM and player when you have a mid to large group (and this especially holds true with 7+ players like Critical Role which is also a commercial product where players banter while initiative is being recorded and Matt sorts out his statblocks and such) what ends up happening is people lower in the initiative get caught up in a conversation and forget to put their hands up, or the DM forgets whose number belongs to who when everyone speaks at once and in a different order. Hell, even I've been in that position even though it should theoretically be easy, but then I also have to roll for the NPCs and creatures they fight when an impromptu fight happens and I haven't pre-rolled initiative. I think from now on I'm going to roll the creatures first, and then ask the players and group them up into 5s like Matt does just so it's easier to write down too.

[@ghqebvful]

Honest question, how do you use diagonal movement so little? Is it just few close combat encounters with multiple enemies or something? I'm trying to think back on all of the combats I've played in with my barbarian and I'm pretty sure I moved diagonally in every single one - that wasn't ended in one turn. Are your players making a bunch of L's? Because that seems inefficient and not in a minmax-y way just like even simple thinking people like me go "ah straight line to enemy means can hit sooner" - though this all probably comes from me playing that barbarian for so long and being a not-so-thinky person myself Edit: Also diagonal distances in spellcasting, all circles are squares - not gonna lie this one kinda bothers me to think about if i think too long on it Edit 2: why does his initiative call not make sense? It's much easier to right down a few names in a ranges and in order than having everyone call out at once - unless literally everyone rolls in the same range that'd get... dicey

[@ernesthakey3396]

Sometimes a game may use a hexagonal grid rather than a square grid; a square grid works best for typical streets and buildings, dungeons, etc., but a hex grid works great for natural settings whether outside or in caverns. And a hex grid doesn't need a separate rule for diagonal movement.

[@ghqebvful]

@@ernesthakey3396 I suppose that's true. I've only ever used hex for like overworld maps for lack of a better term and not necessarily combat maps, so hex rulings don't pop in my head as easy.

[@ernesthakey3396]

@@ghqebvful for a long time I only used hex mats on the gaming table, which made rectangular structures...problematic. :) Eventually I got squares too.

[@twilightgardenspresentatio6384]

6:15 why can’t you change your mind? That sounds like a dm not able to cope not a player lacking options. The game is about decision making and results. You call the entire mechanic of chosen initiative “silly” That seems dismissive of something barely touched. I have a bias but I played dnd for decades at the same time training in martial forms armed an unarmed, solo, dual and in melee. Maybe it’s that I don’t gamble, I work, train and plan. Maybe it’s that I run combat in one second intervals instead of ten second chunks. Most fights end in ten seconds or less. A trained swordsman should be able to make three decisions in a second of melee. I also don’t see battle as chaotic as people who don’t remember conflicts second by second decades after they’ve occurred in order to sus out technique and decision making errors. The slowdown that the game makes entering combat feels realistic to me. I started gaming with my martial arts group and when something doesn’t work right in the game we’d change it. Decisions matter more than dice to me. Rolling for initiative seems like guessing who’s gonna go first, not wading into battle knowing each second could carry the final blow of the fight. As for the initiative action in combat, getting a second to jump on your opponent before their hands are up could mean causing the damage that breaks his morale or even sway the fight outright. If your players strike as soon as talking fails…it means they talked. Again this is a dm issue to me. Fighters often talk even while fighting. Preparing for battle is the only real way to guarantee a win. Knowing what you can do, when and why let’s you choose to act against the changes your opponent makes. Hit point are a resource. Fighting, running away and working on crafts or ambush setups all have costs. Run away before you’re too tired to run.

[@armorclasshero2103]

Just rename initiative to speed.

[@SupergeekMike]

If you did, what would you call walking speed?

[@armorclasshero2103]

@@SupergeekMike Move, movement, walking, etc

[@johnhenryparks1563]

Its somewhat strange that you reference EotE, but insist on calling what that game refers to as "structured play" as initiative when initiative is just one aspect of the most codified element of most RPG's. Still, initiative is probably the worst element of any RPG I have ever played, especially 5e's take on it. Initiative is not fair; more often than not its an encounter defining roll of a many-faced die that sums with an already over-weighted stat. I have never found it fun or interesting to be either the guy going last after being clubbered, first with no context or left in the fat middle, which is what the former to become after round one.

[@mallenwho]

I've said this in another video, but I'll say it again. Your script has a lot of verbal parentheses and cutaways. But the editing doesn't support that and so it's actually so much harder to listen to your arguments and flow of logic. Your presentation is very much 'last week tonight' right now. It's your face monologing on the right of screen, with a prepared slideshow on the left side, that you refer to. But John Oliver doesn't do regular cutaway gags. They don't work. There are carefully scripted jokes. Or if there are cutaways, they're in the slides not in the dialogue. It might be worth considering how to improve your presentation based on this current model, or if you would like to change models entirely!

[@SupergeekMike]

Can you offer an example of a cutaway that you feel doesn’t work because of my format? I think it’s just possible you and I might have different sensibilities for presentation, but I’m open to feedback, even if I might ultimately draw a different conclusion for if/how to remedy it going forward.

[@mallenwho]

@@SupergeekMike Examples: 2:24 - you cut your own flow, admitting its a tangent. There is a jump cut at 2:57 once the tangent is over, but there's nothing that stylistically isolates this tangent from the rest of the video. 3:02 - in a text form this would be written 'DnD is being compared to so many other games (which is a good thing by the way!)'. That extra context or nuance just comes off as part of the main monologue. There is a change in your spoken energy but nothing else in the video changes. 6:35 - This is a small one. But if it were me, I would frame the 'don't worry I'm going to say nice things about him in a minute' as the cutaway. It interrupts your primary flow of reasoning. 7:50 - This is the big one. Yes there is a cut here in recordings but nothing else changes. I do disagree with your PoV here, but that's moot. The big issue here is that without the camera cutting again (as if you'd taken this outburst and put it where it did make sense to include), you just continue the script at 7:58 with the next point, in the same breath almost. This is the cutaway gag, or perhaps, the set up for a future video plug. It does interrupt the video, and you want it to. But the editing language doesn't support its interruption, but instead positions it at the same level as the rest of the vid. This one was why I wrote the original comment. The rest of the video was much more linear and straightforward. Overall, I think that one simple fix to this (and to general pacing, or if you need to rearrange points in editing), is ALWAYS cut at the end of a logical thought or paragraph, eevn if the take kept going. Just trim that second of silence out so it looks like a cut. I suggest this so that the audience can re-orient their attention on the new idea in the new paragraph. It literally helps us breathe (look into Walter Murch's idea of 'The Blink', where the audience's emotional state matches the rate of cutting, and affects 'the rhythmic digestion of thoughts and ideas'. Cutting not often enough can be just as damaging to engagement and comprehension as cutting too often.) This would help with pacing and digestion even if nothing else changed editing-wise (i'd still suggest something that indicates a cutaway comment as divergent from the main line of thinking like so many vloggers do). That's my 2c. Overall I encourage you to draw your own conclusion for presentation.

[@SupergeekMike]

Fair enough. First of all, I do very much appreciate the feedback. It’s been years since I read “The Blink” but referencing it does demonstrate that you are coming at this from the perspective of someone who knows a fair bit about editing and who thinks a lot about this stuff, and I really respect that. You’ve correctly identified some edits that don’t necessarily flow with the rest of the video, but in truth, those are usually just out of necessity. I’m still getting used to recording with a teleprompter, so there are times when I have to pause and take a drink or clear my throat, because I can’t wait for the next logical place where the script would cut. Sometimes it’s also just because the formatting of the script in the teleprompter meant the gap was too long, which is why some cuts seem to line up with the end of one thought and the beginning of another (I just switched prompter apps for one that’s easier to use, that seems to be helping with this one). But overall, the approach I’m going for, and hoping to get to, is to reach that “all in one take” format. I think that’s why your conclusion, that these are cutaway gags, is perfectly reasonable based on the evidence you’re working with, but in truth that’s not how they’re intended to be presented - it’s just a necessary evil because I have been really bad at reading aloud for more than 30 years (I don’t have a fear of public speaking, but I have a long history of stumbling and fumbling when reading *anything* aloud), and there are still some tricks I need to learn to be able to make it through a script without cuts. One approach, of course, would be to zoom in for punch lines or asides, and that’s a style that a lot of KZbinrs I enjoy do employ (probably to hide edits as well as emphasizing points). I might do that at some point, my style has certainly changed over time, but right now my instinct is to say that I don’t tend to write jokes that *require* a punch-in - the goal is to write something that just flows from topic to topic. Not sure this will stay the case forever, but right now that’s where my head is at. Again, I really appreciate the thoughtful feedback, and I’m going to keep it in mind; even though the style you describe isn’t quite what I’m going for, there’s useful feedback here, and it’s worth keeping in mind :)

[@dwdillydally]

My group reacts this way when I lay out a map. To them, map means combat is imminent. 🫣