Actions before Initiative is rolled.

[Kane0]

The abilities that I see as a problem:

Casting a signature spell or cantrip over and over
Hide
Defend
Delay
Coordinate

And that's all I can think of off the top of my head.

I play 5e, but one thing i’ve taken to doing is getting everyone to select one skill to be passively using during travel, exploration, etc. It’s basically just an expansion of the passive perception concept, where everyone can choose one thing to be doing while they are buskwacking through the jungle, weaving through courtly intricacies or methodically sweeping darkened dungeons.

Passive Perception is the default, but each skill is capable of being set as your current passive and performs its usual functions, the trick is you generally cant have multiple running at a time so it pays for the party to diversify (the ranger is an example of an exception, who gets the benefit of always having survival passively running for free).

But you generally cant have *actions* set as your passive activity, only skills. You can be passively stealthing (putting effort into avoiding notice and being inconspicuous), but not capital H hide. You can have passsive survival (following tracks) or passive investigation (noting oddities indicative of traps) but not capital S search. etc, etc. This is of course is in addition to the normal abilities dnd characters tend to have whether they be passive (darkvision), long duration (pass without trace) or spammable (teleporting between shadows).

TL;DR all skills have a passive mode like passive perception, but under normal circumstances a PC can only make use of one at a time.

Might be helpful to you. Might not.

[Morgaln]

This is also flat out wrong.

First off, there was no "on the fly changing of the rules". I had been treating each room as a separate act all campaign. In retrospect, that was dumb, but it doesn't meant it was an "on the fly change", and indeed having suddenly come to my senses and started treating preparation in the previous room as part of the same scene would have been an "on the fly change".

Second, and far more importantly, you are putting the cart before the horse and assigning me motives about things I wasn't even aware of at the time.

Bob asked if they would need to put an extend on a spell to have it last throughout the next encounter if they cast it before opening the door, and I said yes. He didn't cast the spell (with extend) and that was the end of it that night.

Then the next day, Bob angrily texted me and said that he was pissed off that I robbed him of not one but *two* combat turns. I asked what he meant, and he said that since he failed initiative after opening the door, he lost the first turn, and then by having to spend a round casting the spell without extend. I told him that he would have failed initiative regardless, so it was only one turn, at which point he started ranting about how if he is already taking actions outside of the room he shouldn't possibly be allowed to fail initiative because doing so would mean that the monsters are potentially getting a free turn to interrupt them as soon as they open the door.

I'm curious: how do you "fail" initiative? Initiative should determine what order you act in, not whether you act at all. Even if you're last in initiative order, you still get your action, just later than anyone else. Unless your system is so deadly that going first means you can take enemies out of the action before they had their turn.

One idea I can throw out there is to change the initiative system to something completely different, a system that doesn't even require rolling. Two variations if recently encountered come to mind off-hand:

1. Sentinels RPG: In this game, the first round is started by a combatant of the GM's choosing. After that combatant acts, they choose who acts next, and whoever acts next chooses who acts after them (choosing from everyone who hasn't acted this round) and so on. It absolutely allows the players to all go first if they want to. However, going last in a round has major tactical advantages. Whoever acts last in a round gets to choose the combatant who starts off the next round, choosing from anyone but themselves. My players learned pretty quickly that if they all act first in a round, this means the enemies have the option to go twice before any player gets to act again; that can be very dangerous. On the other hand, there are abilities that last "until your next turn." Timed right, these can be taken advantage of for almost two whole rounds. Conversely, the choice to cut the duration of an enemy's ability short at the cost of letting them act now is also available.
My group has started to discuss initiative order a lot in those sessions; questions like "who has something to take avantage of the current situation?" or "can we take that guy's attack now?" are common and do wonders for communication and teamwork.

2. Tanares Adventures boardgame: I only know this one on a theoretical level, as I have read the rules but haven't had the opportunity to try the game out yet. The players act first in any given round. They get to decide who goes first among them. However, if an enemy gets attacked, that enemy acts next in the turn order (assuming the enemy hasn't acted yet). Once all players have acted, any enemies that didn't get attacked get their turn. The twist? Those enemies get bonuses to their actions because they were not interrupted by the players.

Both of these systems give a lot of power to the players in how they want to tackle a situation, but players also have to consider the tactical implications and consequences of what they decide to do.
I'm not sure either of those systems would suit you as you are big on versimilitude and these are more gamist. But it might be an idea to try out something similar and see if that works better with your players.

[Telok]

Right. But based on your posts on this forum, you seem to make these sorts of mistakes quite often

Sample bias. Tak only really posts when there's a problem. Given the group its likely any given session has a higher chance for a problem than many other groups' averages, but then neither do all problems rise to the level of getting posted about. Given the group has steady... weekly?... games for years and they won't play D&D in part because D&D causes more rules related arguments, I think this is likely mainly general people problems & frustration rather than any mechanical or systemic GMing issues. There'd probably be actual vitrol and anger if they were playing Monopoly.

[gbaji]

I am not seeing the distinction.

The players are always in a scene. Enchantments last until the end of the current scene. Extended enchantments last until the end of the next scene.

Spells never last "1 scene."

For example, if a spell lasts "one hour" and I cast it at half past one, it will last until half past two, for a duration of one whole hour.
There is no situation in my game where you will get similar fractions; a spell cast half way through a scene will always last until the end of the current scene. They will never last until half way through the next scene to get a duration of "one whole scene".

AFAICT the dispute is about where the GM draws the line between one scene and the next. I was counting "exploring the great hall" as one scene and "exploring the dining room" each as one scene, drawing the line between the scenes at opening the dining room door.

Yes. That's what I was getting at. You are restricting the "current" scene to "this side of the door", and everything on the other side of the door is the "next scene".

I'm also not sure what you mean by "spells don't last based on scenes but enchantments do"? Huh? Then you later say that Bob specifically got angry because you required him to spend a round (on the other side of the door) casting a spell, or had to use extend if he wanted to cast it ahead of time.

Um... Whatever the heck you call the thing Bob was trying to do, the core issue here is that by arbitrarily deciding that the scene boundary was "the door", that they had to use an extra level of duration in order for any <whatevers> to actually continue operating through the fight they were prepping for.

That's the disagreement here. The players believe that the new scene should start the moment they begin prepping to enter the new room, and not at the moment of crossing the threshold into that new room. And to be honest, I agree with them.

I can't agree here.

First off the "play this way" was in reference to the players wanting to start the initiative count outside the room before either side had any specific knowledge of one another. This is not the only way to play.

No. It was not:

My statement is that if we are going to play that way, I will need to start checking for monster awareness, and then if the monsters hear them coming (which is almost a certainty given how un-stealthy the party is as a whole) readying actions to attack anything coming through the door.

This is what you said. This is what I responded to. At no point is initiative ever mentioned. This is 100% about when different groups detect each other and can then choose to take actions in response. And yes, the default should always be that the NPCs are perfectly capable of detecing the PCs presense and taking actions in response.

It's just strange because I keep saying (repeatedly) that I agree that the PCs should not be able to just "auto win" initiative. That's not the issue. I'm am talking entirely and only about your apparent ruling that players cannot prep at all on the other side of a door unless they use some sort of extended duration on their spells/abilities/whatever. That's what I disagree with. Not the initiative thing.

And yes. You should be checking for monster awareness. Always. Regardless of whatever initiative rules are in play.

Second, the idea that there is one "right way to play" is laughable. There might be one correct RAW way to play, or even one correct RAI way to play, but nothing stops us from adopting house rules about when we roll initiative. As the game designer, I could even rewrite the initiative rules if I thought the players way made any sense (I don't), and just because I am the game designer doesn't mean I can't play by something other than what is written (Monte Cook claims to have an entire binder of 3E house rules despite being the lead designer).

Again. Stop talking about initiative. I'm not arguing with you about initiative. You keep looping back to initiative, despite repeated statements on my part that this is not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about when/whether you allow players to prepare for a fight, and the (odd IMO) ruling that since the enemies behind the door are in a "new scene", the PCs must cast a spell/whatever that has duration to last "to the end of the next scene" instead of one that lasts "to the end of the current scene" if they want that spell/whatever to remain in effect for the fight they are prepping for.

This is why Jay R talked about the issue being about what your defintion of "current" is. For me, the moment you are aware of a (potential) fight on the other side of a door, and decide to prep for that fight, you are now in the "scene with the whatever is on the other side of the door". That is now your "current" scene.

This is the point of contention. It's not freaking about initiative.

Third, no, as a GM I have the right not to roll for something. In this case, the party is not even trying to be stealthy, and they have a warrior with a negative stealth score. I am fully within my rights to just say that with no specific attempt at sneaking, I can take a typical result and assume that both sides are generally aware of the other, the PCs expect a fight when they kick in the door, the monsters hear someone coming and can expect trouble, and thus a straight initiative roll is called for. Its absurd that you expect me to calculate difficulties and roll a dice for each monster just because they could potentially all roll natural 1s and not hear the giant clanking knight templar coming up to their door and kicking it down, just like I don't roll alertness tests to see if the tavern-keeper mishears the PCs drink orders or the sheriff doesn't hear the PCs knocking on her door in the middle of the knight, its pointless tedium that is unlikely to ever come up.

I honestly don't care about what method you use to determine if the NPCs detect the party. That's up to you and your game system. My point (and my only point) was that allowing NPCs to detect the party and take action in response is the "norm". You seemed to be saying that if you allow the players to detect the NPCs and prep for a battle with them *before* entering the room (presumably without having to have extended duration on their <whatevers>), then you will now start rolling perception rolls for the NPCs, so they can do the same.

My response was that "Um... Duh. this is what you should always be doing by default".

I'm not sure if there's just a miscommunication going on here, or what. But I was not talking about inititive rolls there. I was talking about allowing the party to prep for the fight they are about to enter without having to cast up extended duration buffs to do so. You then responded with "if I let them do that, then I have to allow my NPCs do to so as well". To which I said "Yeah. That's exactly what you should be doing anyway". To which you then responded with "But... Initiative!!!"

/confused

Casting a spell with combat benefits outside of combat is fine (assuming the duration is long enough).

Which is problematic if you are decding that "casting spells on this side of the door" counts as being in "scene A", but "fighting on the other side of the door" counts as being in "scene B", and thus the spell must be cast with a longer duration in order to "last to the end of the next scene". That's the single point I've been trying to make here. And it's strange because half the time you seem to be saying you agree, or that your ruling was wrong, but then the other half of the time, you seem to be continuing to argue that "prepping outside the door requires longer duration".

And yes, as I stated earlier, if someone wants to wander around with a spell up and have that spell last into a combat that happens later on, they must extend the spell (wandering around being one scene, while the combat is another). But, if someone is casting that spell with the specific intention of using it in a fight they are literally about to initiate, then that should count as the "current scene" and not the "next scene". That's literally all I'm arguing about here.

Hide; when treated as a condition rather than an opposed test. Its perfectly balanced and sensible to hide from a specific group or place either in or out of combat. To then say you are "hidden" indefinitely and can then walk right up to them (or anyone else) out in the open is both game-breaking and absurd.

I agree, in general. And I suppose this is game system dependent, because you keep speaking of it being an "opposed test". But I guess my question about your game system is: "Does the PC have to already be aware of a specific group of enemies they are hiding from before attempting to hide?". And no, I'm not talking about "walking around all day long hiding from everything". I've already posted that this is absurd. I'm asking about "I'm going to go search that warehouse while remaining hidden from anyone who might be looking".

Sometimes, the way you describe this, and the specific terminology you use, makes me not completely certain where you are actually drawing that line. To me, someone can be "actively trying to avoid being seen" while doing some specific thing, without first having to know who is there and may be watching. Probably a minor quibble, but still worth mentioning.

Defend; this represents focusing on actively protecting yourself at the expense of everyone else. Being able to do this out of combat against unknown threats is absurd on a narrative level; raising your shield against incoming archery won't protect you from a knife in the back you never say coming or having a boulder drop on your head because you hit a trip wire. Mechanically, it greatly devalues stealth and initiative to give everyone a +4 AC bonus at all times when they aren't actively fighting or casting a spell; its supposed to be a trade-off in exchange for not doing something active during your turn, and if you haven't rolled initiative, you don't have a turn yet. And the idea that someone can be defending outside of combat, but then jump into the normal initiative order without penalty the second the fight starts is a complete betrayal of what the ability represents both mechanically and narratively.

None of which were the scenario we were discussing (nor the hypothetical you asked about). You're runniing to an extreme to counter the specific case.

In this case, we're talking about a group of PCs opening a door, and whether they could have "readied a full defense" action in preparation to opening the door. That's not "out of combat against unknown threats". This is "the round berfore combat" and "against threats on the other side of the door". Yeah, they may not know what is there, or what may attack them, but I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to hold their shield up, or squeeze themselves against the side of the wall, just in case someone fires arrows or whatever at them through the door once it's opened.

I'm not at all sure how this is a "betrayal of what the ability represents". So, I can switch from defending one round to attacking the next, and that's not a problem, but I can't switch from defending the round before combat (when I know it's about to happen), and attacking in the first round? Why? In neither case am I able to both get the defensive bonus and attack at the same time. The only difference is that by your ruling, the PCs can't prepare for a "likely threat" from a "likely direction" until after they have directly encounted that threat, rolled initiative, and are able to act based on that initiative.

Which, if we're going to loop back to the iniative issue, may be why the players seem to want to roll initiative early in the first place. If you are telling them that they can't take some actions until after iniative is rolled, their next step would be "Ok. We roll initiative before we open the door". I agree, that this is an absurd path to follow, but it's a path the players are going down in direct response to your own ruling on this.

Again, this is getting cause and effect backward.

I was making a ruling about spell durations. This whole weird scheme to auto-win initiative forever was something that they only told me about after I had already made the ruling.

And I didn't need to make a ruling about the start point of encounters to foil it; simply stating that the NPC's are either delaying their actions or guarding the doorway would have neutered it, and it was when I told Bob this that he give me that weird line about "realism as I see it and fairness for my monsters" and started giving me the silent treatment and refusing to discuss stealth or initiative any further.

Hmmm... Again, there may be a communication issue. Are you conflating "take a combat action (like defend) before combat begins" as "auto-win initiative" maybe?

Because this really seems to have stemmed ultimately from them wanting to do certain things as part of their combat prep, and you saying "you can't do that until you are in combat".

To me, when you say they want to 'auto win initiative", I interpret that to mean that without having to roll anything, they are insisting that they get to take actions directly against their opponents first. But entering a defensvie stance isn't doing something to an enemy. Casting up a buff isn't doing anything to an enemy. Moving around and positioniong themselves on their side of the door doesn't do something to an enemy.

I think part of the issue is that I'm trying to interpret what exactly you are saying here. But it seems like the entire issue really does derive from you being more restrictive about what and when the PCs can do certain things, than the players like. And it also seems like you are presenting the forum with the tail end of that conversation (and the most absurd requests/demands by the players) while kinda skirting around the initiating issues that lead down a path to that level of absurdity in the first place.

See, on one hand it makes sense, if you are in a standoff it wholly makes sense to hide behind your shield in preparation for an incoming arrow volley.

But on the other hand, its weird that this also protects you from attacks of a type or from a direction that you don't see coming, and mechanically it really neuters both stealth and initiative to allow people to just have a +4 bonus to AC all day without penalty (or even if you do limit it to when they believe combat is imminent).

It's weird in the same way whether you allow the PC to enter the stance ahead of a combat or not though, right? If I take a full defense action during combat, I still get the same +4AC regardless of who attacks me, right? So... this isn't at all about prepping ahead of time. It's about how we decide the defend action should work in the first place. And there certainly may be rules that provide bonus to-hit (or minuses to AC) based on using sneak attack, or blindsiding someone, or whatever terminology is in play. Those apply in both cases, right? So if that's a sufficient game mechanic to use then someone is using defend "in combat", why is it suddenly not, when someone wants to use it one round ahead of time to "prepare for the combat".

Still not seeing the problem. And no. We are not discussing "walking around defending against everything all day long". I agree that's absurd. That's not what we're discussing. We're talking about whether a character, when they know exactly when a fight is about to start (ie: Opening a door), can choose to enter that fight in a defensive stance. That's the question you asked, and my answer is "Yeah. I think they should be able to".

Likewise, it kind of requires some narrative ret-conning; if you passed initiative, you were scrabbling to get through the door and attack as fast as possible, if you failed initiative you were hanging back and raising your shield against whatever comes out to you.

I'm not seeing the need for any ret-con here. You are defending yourself right up to the moment you begin to act offensively against the opponents in the room.

You also keep using this odd terminology like "winning/passing initiative". Initiative is rolled by everyone. It just determines the order in which you get to act in the round. Yes, we often refer to rolling better than someone else as "winning initiative" (relative to that opponent). But at the end of the day, whatever actions you are taking take effect through a "rounds worth of time". So I don't "win" iniative here. I'm "doing X" when the door is opened. When my turn to act comes along (based on the order determined by initiative), I then stop "doing X" and begin "doing Y*". So, in this case, I "stop hiding behind my sheild" and "begin charging into the room".

Still not seeing the problem with this. Except that by you not allowing PCs to do this sort of thing, you are leading them to the absurd "well, then we roll initiative before we open the door, so we can take these actions a around ahead of time". And when you tell them "The NPCs aren't aware of you, so they can't roll against you, so you can't roll", they may respond with "Ok. Then that means we automatically win initiative, since they can't roll, right?". Which (maybe, since I'm guessing at the progression of events) leads to "My players want to auto-win initiative" (and somehow linking this repeatedly to "players want to prep for the fight, before the fight actually starts").

I'm speculating here, of course. But it just feels like there's something else in the progression going on. I'm having a hard time believing that the players just out of the blue declared "we should auto-win initiative". I suspect that there was some sequence of statements leading up to this, and that you are interpreting what they actualy want do to as "wanting to auto-win initiative" because in your mind, they want to do things that can only be done after initiative is rolled, but before combat starts. And yeah, some of those I probably agree with you. But some of them, based on what you've posted so far, I don't.

In retrospect, I probably should roll preparations for exploring a room and repercussions from exploring a room into the same act as exploring the room, but having been running a mega-dungeon all summer where it hadn't actually ever come up before, my brain had become compartmentalized to see 1 room = 1 scene, but I was too tired at the time to see that.

Yes. Absolutely. If you make no other change, you need to change this.

I'm also not sure I'd maintain a "1 room, 1 scene" dynamic either (again though, this may work for you based on other game factors). I tend to see a "scene" as any of a sequence of actions that are part of a single larger action. It's really more like "modes" maybe? So I might have "exploring the dungeon" be a single scene. As long as they are wandering around from room to room, searching the areas, looking for things, they are in a single "scene". The moment they encounter something of note, however, a new scene begins. Note that this begins the moment they are aware that there is something 'different" than what they've been doing previously. So they enter a room, and there's some strange glowing pedastle in it, with runes, and making odd noises, or whatever. They make note of this. May decide to take specific actions in response to it, etc. That's a "new scene". But wandering from room to room, doing the same searches, and the same movements, and encountering the same dust and cobwebs? Don't need a new scene for each of those.

Dunno. It's not a big deal to me though. Can break those up however you wish. However, I do strongly suggest that a new scene should always start the moment the PCs begin acting in response to some "new thing". Those actions should be considered part of the scnene involving said "new thing", and not the scene they were in prior to discovering its existence.

Out of curiosity, are you talking about not calling for dice rolls when success or failure is not in question or interesting? Or are you talking about not requiring players to keep track of every last arrow, piece of chalk, and copper coin in their bags? Or policing the PCs table-talk and demanding that all communication be in character and free of meta-gaming?

Because unless that is the case, I have no idea what you are talking about. I consider myself a fairly by the book GM; I NEVER fudge rolls or monster HP, or pull reinforcements out of my butt, the way that a lot of people claim is good GMing. I certainly don't change the rules in order to adjust the difficulty on the fly, that's just silly.

Huh? I mean exactly what I said (and which you quoted):

...instead of just having a consitent set of rules and following them, you are trying to "balance the encounter" at the moment, so when it seems like the players prep work is going to make the upcoming fight too easy, you start making inconsistent rulings to make it harder for them.

I'm talking about you placing NPCs into a room in your dungeon, designed to be a "balanced encounter" (or set of encounters for a whole day if we count several such rooms), but only if both sides start "from scratch" with little or no prep ahead of time. But then your players decide to stop and cast a bunch of spells and want to take actions ahead of opening the door to the room, and you realize that this will make the encounter easier than you thought it should be, so you make rulings to restrict what they can do in their prep.

That's what I'm talking about. And yes, I fully put "I'm going to create a scene break between this side of the door and ther other, so it's impossible for them to prep buffs without spending more on a longer duration" as part of "making it harder for them (the PCs)". Or not allowing them to take some actions because those are "combat actions and you can't take them until iniative is rolled", even if they are maybe actions or abilities that don't require an active NPC target to use (or, again, you require them to use some sort of extension to use these while on one side of the door, if they want to use them on the other).

I am not talking about "fudging the dice" or other such things. I'm talking about exactly the thing I've been talking about this entire time. You kinda manipulating the scene/encounter definitions in order to create extra restrictions on their ability to prep for a fight. Now maybe, as you said, you've always run it this way and it just never came up before (which I honestly find hard to believe, since "preping spells/abilities right before a fight starts' is a pretty common thing), but it's still a really odd ruling across the board.

Now, again, I do sometimes just gloss over things when failure is unimportant or unreasonable, and I guess my players do sometimes see that as unfair. Is that what you are saying?

If there's a pattern I've seen in your posts about problems with your group, it's that you seem to make snap judgements/rulings to deal with an issue "in the moment", that creates conflict and that (in most cases) you regret making after the fact, due to unforseen side effects that occur. And sure, this isn't helped by Bob, who seems to play rules lawyer on you all the time.

I don't *think* that is what you are saying, but that's the only way in which I can think of that I use inconsistent rulings as a matter of balance. If that is what you are talking about, we can have that discussion. But in the (very likely) event that you aren't, could you please give some more specific examples?

Yeah. It's not what I'm saying. I'm maybe suggesting that if the players do something you weren't prepared for, or don't have an existing rule that applies perfectly to, maybe just allow them to do what they are trying to do? Then take some time (and perhaps discussion with your group) and decide on the "correct ruling going forward".

Your game will survive the players having one "easy win because the players thought of a rule interpretation (or combination of game actions) you didn't consider". You are the GM. You can always create more monsters, more encounters, and anything else you want. What your game cannot survive (much of anyway) is a constant back and forth of "You shouldn't be able to do that, but I can't think of the right reason why at the moment, so I'll come up with some rule/decision to prevent it", followed by a series of arguments, and you then reconsidering the ruling or decision you made after the fact anyway.

Again. Maybe the whole "scene starts at the door" thing was something you already decided. But it certainly seems like this was the first time someone said "hey. Um... Shouldn't our prep for this fight on the other side of the door count as the same scene as us fighting what's on the other side of the door", and you made the decision that "No, it doesn't, so you have to extend the duration on your spells/whatever if you want them to still be up a couple rounds from now when you open the door". if the issue never came up before, then this was the "point of decision" in which you were making a ruling on that.

And IMO, you ruled poorly. The players were absolutely correct. The prep they do ahead of opening the door should count as the same scene/encounter as whatever happens on the other side of that door. And in retrospect, you seem to agree that this should have been the case (setting aside the absurdity of "auto-win initiative" whatever that actually entailed).

Next time. Just give them the win. Then adjust your rules to account for whatever you and your players decide is the best way to handle this going foward.

I am not conflating *combat* with scenes.

I was considering each room of the dungeon to be a separate scene. There are plenty of rooms which had no combat, or where combat started half-way through the scene due to uncovering / being ambushed by a hidden monster or when negotiations broke down. In these instances, I called for initiative mid-scene, and did not say that scene based durations, positive or negative, reset the moment combat began.

Ok. Then you are conflating 'scenes" with "rooms". Again, you're free to do this how you want in your game, but if I may make a suggestion: Scenes are about a single "thing" being done. Exploration is a "thing being done". An encounter (which could be with an object, or living being(s) and could involve combat or not) is a different "thing being done".

I would literally consider the entire time they are exploring, regardless of rooms entered and searched (assuming all in one dungeon/house/whatever) as one "scene". That scene lasts until they encounter something "new or different" at which point a new scene starts, detailing what they so in response to that encounter. And yes, that new scene starts as soon as they are aware of the "new/different thing", which could be "when you walk into the room and something happens", but could also be "you hear noises or see something strange up ahead, what do you do" sorts of things (and certainly includes "we walk up to a door, think there's enemies on the other side, and start prep for combat before entering").

As I mentioned earlier though, that kinda depends on the spells and abilities, with different durations, and how you manage that in your game system. But the "extended" duration seems like it's designed to "cast ahead of time, so it's avaialble if something happens that you may need the spell for without you having to cast it during the actual encounter/combat". Having to recast that every time you enter and explore an empty room in a house seems a bit strange. But maybe not? Again, not very familiar with your game system.

Now, some of the players were obviously conflating initiative with starting a new scene, but that wasn't because of any ruling I had ever made. More likely it was simply because when there are active hostiles in the room, opening the door, starting a new scene, and rolling initiative all happen to sync up.

Right. That's exactly the point. You've made a series of rulings that resulted in the "new scene" starting with "roll for initiative" whenever there are enemies on the other side of a door. And your rulings also say that they can't cast spells that last "for the current scene" until after said initiative roll when that happens.

If you allowed the new scene to start the moment they encounter the door and decide to do something with it then the entire problem (and conflation of scene and combat and initiative roll) disappears. Which is why I keep going back to this as the key initiating factor here.

But yes, at that moment, I had a brain fart and made the bad call that the scene started when entering a new room. I had been up for 19 hours, had worked a full shift before coming to the game, had been in a mega-dungeon for the past four months where nobody had ever tried pre-casting before, and was flat out asked by a player "do we need to use extend if we cast spells before opening the door?".

Well. Clearly it was more than just one question, and your answer, and then it all stopped, right? Clearly, your answer sparked some degree of disagreement, which lead to a series of back and forth and ended with an argument. I mean, at some point in that progression your table got to some point where Bob was wanting to do something that you considered "auto-winning initiative", right? So it was more than just what you are saying.

I get the brain fart. We've all had them. But at some point in this progression, there should have been some re-assessment of the snap answer you gave, which should have resulted in a better ruling and avoided the bulk of that argument.

The issue was, Bob wanted to travel with the rest of the party, hide once at the start of the adventuring day, and then remain hidden until combat started. He would then deploy with the rest of the party, and charge straight at the monsters for a "backstab" to their face. Mechanically, what he was doing was no different than the fighter, except he wanted a +2 to hit, +4 to initiative, and the ability to be un-targetable if he lost initiative due to starting the fight "in stealth".

I'm not sure what this has to do with opening a door and prepping use of skills/spells/abilities prior to doing so. Are you saying that, upon encountering a situation which may result in a combat, you are not allowing him to declare that he is "hiding in the shadows (or equivalent)" just prior to the party opening the door? Because that's a very different situation than "hide once at the start of the adventuring day, and then remain hidden until combat started".

I told him no, he either needs to hang back and wait for the rest of the party to engage, spend an action to hide, or sneak in ahead of the group and find a hiding place on the battlefield, and he would not accept that, threatened to quit the group if I enforced it, and has been making snide comments about it for the last two years.

Honestly, that would depend on the circumstances though. If there are shadows or other places to hide, Bob should be able to declare "I'm hiding in shadows" right before the door is opened. And yeah, based on his initiative roll, he should then be able to slip into the room using his stealth bonus, and, if he's not spotted, be able to sneak up behind someone and attack them with whatever bonuses that entails.

If you are insisting that Bob can't even attempt to start hiding until after combat starts, and iniative is rolled, then yeah, I think he's kinda got a point here. If he has a reason to expect they are about to get into a fight, and states "I'm going to hide in the bushes/shadows/whatever", then he should absolutely be able to do that (other conditions permitting of course). This does not mean he can simply declare "I'm hiding all day", and get those benefits if the party stumbles into a fight with no warning.

Again, I'm seeing a pattern here, where you seem to be actively preventing your players from being able to actually do anything ahead of a fight in preparation for that fight. It's also interesting that you say here that this is a disagreemnt you have been having with him for two years, yet stated earlier that the situation of when a scene starts versus combat versus skill prep just came up recently and never before.

I see this as the same exact problem. If the players have a reason to think "there might be something up ahead" (like they encounter a door and maybe hear noises on the other side maybe) and then state "we're going to take X actions to prepare for what we think is about to happen", they should be allowed to do so. The situation with Bob and stealth in combat is the same thing. You're not alllowing him to use an ability he wants to use in combat, until after the combat has begun. When, realistically, he should be able to use his hide ability any time he wants.

He is *ALSO* complaining that it is stupid that it is possible for a hidden character to lose initiative. I am not sure if this means he wants to automatically go first when charging in with the party, thinks he is entitled to *two* rounds of actions after ambushing an enemy, or is afraid of some imagined scenario where he successfully ambushes someone but loses initiative, and the enemy somehow attacks him between the time he reveals himself but before he can land his attack; which as I said above is absurd unless he is required to move into position before attacking and blows his stealth roll to move undetected.

Have you asked him? I can only go on what you say about Bob, and there's not nearly enough information here for me to figure out what's being talked about.

Um... But there are certainly situations in which someone using stealth should be able to go "first", becuase their attack is occuring before the other guy even knows there's a combat yet (it hasn't started yet). And I would absolutely expect that if I've successfuly snuck up on someone, and backstabbed them, that if there's also some surprise bonus to initiative, I should *also* have a good chance of getting my next action before anyone can react. This goes back to my comments about "initiating events" that start a fight. Those don't use initiative. They occur "before combat starts". So if that initiating action is me backstabbing someone, that action is done. It's not part of the combat. Now we roll initiative and start a new round (the first round of the actual combat).

If you are ruling that Bob's initial backstab (before anyone else is even aware of him) counts as his action in the first melee round, and now everyone else gets to act in reponse, then I'd also side with him that that's an insane ruling as well. I'm again speculating here, but you comment about "getting two rounds" during an ambush suggests this is the exact situation (or at least something very similar).

If you're going even further and stating that once Bob sneaks into position, but before he backstabs, that he and everyone else rolls initiative and all act in that order, then that's even further into "insane ruling" territory. Again, the concept (to me anyway) is not that Bob should "automatically win initiative" in that situation, but that he should not have to roll at all. There is no intiative, since there are not yet two sides both aware of the other and both trying to take actions against each other. it's just him, hiding behind someone, and stabbing them. He always gets to "go first" in that situation. And yes, then combat begins (assuming there are other enemies around aware of what just happened), and that prompts an initiative roll, and yes, Bob could certainly roll better and be able to act again before anyone reacts.

The rulings about stealth had absolutely nothing to do with the call about whether the spell needed extend. We have been fighting about stealth for over two years, and my position has not wavered in that time. Stealth was not a factor in the encounter with the extended spell. Nobody attempted to hide or sneak. There was no surprise or ambush. There was no discussion of stealth. They literally had *nothing* to do with each other.

Except, as I pointed out above, that both have a lot to do with "when a combat starts", and "when we roll initiative".

And if they don't have anything to do with each other, why are you talking about it? You don't "win" the argument over the most recent issue, by dredging up other things Bob has argued or done in the past. This is not about picking "sides" that we like or agree with in general. It's about assessing the actions and decisions made in this situation. The past just doesnt' matter.

He had been bitching about stealth and not auto-winning initiative earlier in the night, but it was the furthest thing from my mind when I made the call about the scene starting when the door was opened.

Again, both issues share the element of "I'm not going to let you enter combat already using abilities that I think might be too useful for combat". It's a valid discussion IMO.

First off, there was no "on the fly changing of the rules". I had been treating each room as a separate act all campaign. In retrospect, that was dumb, but it doesn't meant it was an "on the fly change", and indeed having suddenly come to my senses and started treating preparation in the previous room as part of the same scene would have been an "on the fly change".

This was either the first time this exact situation occured (where they wanted to prep prior to opening a door and entering combat), or it was not. You have suggested in your previous posts, that this had not come up before. So yeah, it was an "on the fly" ruling, since this was the first time it came up (or was relevant).

Bob asked if they would need to put an extend on a spell to have it last throughout the next encounter if they cast it before opening the door, and I said yes. He didn't cast the spell (with extend) and that was the end of it that night.

Then the next day, Bob angrily texted me and said that he was pissed off that I robbed him of not one but *two* combat turns. I asked what he meant, and he said that since he failed initiative after opening the door, he lost the first turn, and then by having to spend a round casting the spell without extend. I told him that he would have failed initiative regardless, so it was only one turn, at which point he started ranting about how if he is already taking actions outside of the room he shouldn't possibly be allowed to fail initiative because doing so would mean that the monsters are potentially getting a free turn to interrupt them as soon as they open the door.

And there were no other questions or disagreement at all during the actual fight? That seems... odd.

There was no discussion by him (at the table) about "taking actions outside of the room"? What was he talking about then? He sure seems to think that he was doing things prior to entering the room, and thus prior to rolling for initiative. So yeah. I can't really comment on this except to say that it feels like there's some facts missing from this description.

[Talakeal]

Sample bias. Tak only really posts when there's a problem. Given the group its likely any given session has a higher chance for a problem than many other groups' averages, but then neither do all problems rise to the level of getting posted about. Given the group has steady... weekly?... games for years and they won't play D&D in part because D&D causes more rules related arguments, I think this is likely mainly general people problems & frustration rather than any mechanical or systemic GMing issues. There'd probably be actual vitrol and anger if they were playing Monopoly.

Yeah, mostly.

You do mostly hear about the bad sessions. While I do post bi-weekly campaign diaries, they don't generate a lot of discussion, and I only tend to post advice threads when I have a problem I am looking to solve (or just blow off steam about in a safe environment).

I am not saying I am perfect, or that some of my players aren't dysfunctional geeks who wouldn't last a week in a normal gaming group, but I don't think I (or any of my players) are especially prone to making mistakes, and I don't think I am especially prone to changing the rules on the fly. Honestly, I think if anything I am too rigid and too likely to follow RAW even if it isn't appropriate, and it is probably my biggest flaw behind an inability to read body language and the stubborn willingness to continue playing with and talking to toxic people no matter how stressed out it makes me.

And you do *not* want to play Monopoly at my house. No joking, its the most tense family board game you will *ever* play. I am *dead* serious.

I'm curious: how do you "fail" initiative? Initiative should determine what order you act in, not whether you act at all. Even if you're last in initiative order, you still get your action, just later than anyone else. Unless your system is so deadly that going first means you can take enemies out of the action before they had their turn.

My system is a bit different than D&D in that initiative and surprise are combined into a single roll, but in short, failing means that you roll lower than the monsters did, meaning that over the course of the fight you effectively get one less turn than they do.

Spoiler: Summary of Heart of Darkness Initiative Rules for Anyone who cares

Show

Initiative is determined by dexterity + perception and modified by certain merits, flaws, and magic.
Hidden characters get +4.
Initiating combat unexpectedly gives +2.
Having a greater reach than your opponent gives +2.
Needing to move before acting gives -2.
Having a weapon holstered gives -2. The Quick-Draw skill can negate this penalty of even turn it into a bonus.
Having a readied action gives between -6 and +6 depending on how close your readied action adheres to what you end up doing.

Only the players roll initiative. The difficulty is equal to 10 + the most common initiative score of all the enemies present.

Success allows your character to take a turn before the enemies.
All characters take a turn together after the enemies.
Success by more than 20 creates a true surprise round, before combat you get a bonus action against which the enemies cannot defend.
Failure by more than 20 means you are truly surprised and cannot act or defend yourself until the enemy has acted twice.

Thanks for those alternate systems! While I doubt they are right for my current group / system, they do give me some good ideas for the future!


@Gbaji: It seems like we agree on 99% of stuff here. I am just being overly defensive. I will try and keep this post shorter and more friendly in tone.

Also, I a have been using the terms scene / encounter / and act interchangeably for the same concept, because that is the terminology the three games I play most often use for the same concept. Please don't read any distinction between them.

Yes. That's what I was getting at. You are restricting the "current" scene to "this side of the door", and everything on the other side of the door is the "next scene".

I'm also not sure what you mean by "spells don't last based on scenes but enchantments do"? Huh? Then you later say that Bob specifically got angry because you required him to spend a round (on the other side of the door) casting a spell, or had to use extend if he wanted to cast it ahead of time.

The semantic point I am trying to make is that no sort of spells in Heart of Darkness will ever last a "full encounter". They last until the end of encounters.

A normal enchantment fades at the end of the *current* encounter, even if you cast it with just a round left to go. An extended enchantment will last until the end of the *next* encounter, regardless of whether cast it 1 round into the current encounter, 1 round before the end of the current encounter, or somewhere in between.

Thus a normal enchantment will last some percentage of a single full encounter, and an extended enchantment will last somewhere between 1 and 2 full encounters.

Which is different than a duration measured in time, where you can expect to get the full duration regardless of what happens. So if I cast an hour long spell at 1:59, it will last until 2:59, exactly one hour. Whereas if I cast an Heart of Darkness enchantment 9 rounds into a 10 rounds encounter, it will last 1 round and end, rather than extending 9 rounds into the next encounter for a duration equal to a full ten round encounter. (I am picking 10 rounds out of their air as an example, please don't read anything into the specific number).

Um... Whatever the heck you call the thing Bob was trying to do, the core issue here is that by arbitrarily deciding that the scene boundary was "the door", that they had to use an extra level of duration in order for any <whatevers> to actually continue operating through the fight they were prepping for.

Correct.

I am just clarifying that by the rules, if the scene ends upon opening the door, the spell will only last 1 round. They PCs are not guaranteed to get a "full encounter" out of it.

I am not saying having a doorway as the scene boundary is a good idea, just stating that I had been running it that way and that it how the rules operate.

That's the disagreement here. The players believe that the new scene should start the moment they begin prepping to enter the new room, and not at the moment of crossing the threshold into that new room. And to be honest, I agree with them.

I do to. But that isn't how I was running it.

Heart of Darkness isn't really meant to be a dungeon crawler. I had been treating each room as a separate act for the whole campaign, and it hasn't been an issue. I didn't feel like changing it on the fly at 10:30PM while we were all tired and wanting to go home.

After thinking about it after the game with a clear head, I do agree that changing it is for the best and treating each room as a separate act was not a great idea in the first place. I will be changing it going forward.

No. It was not:

This is what you said. This is what I responded to. At no point is initiative ever mentioned. This is 100% about when different groups detect each other and can then choose to take actions in response. And yes, the default should always be that the NPCs are perfectly capable of detecing the PCs presense and taking actions in response.

It's just strange because I keep saying (repeatedly) that I agree that the PCs should not be able to just "auto win" initiative. That's not the issue. I'm am talking entirely and only about your apparent ruling that players cannot prep at all on the other side of a door unless they use some sort of extended duration on their spells/abilities/whatever. That's what I disagree with. Not the initiative thing.

Again. Stop talking about initiative. I'm not arguing with you about initiative. You keep looping back to initiative, despite repeated statements on my part that this is not what I'm talking about.

Ok, looking back over the thread, it looks like we have been talking circles around each other by not understanding what the other one was referring with indefinite pronouns.

What I was trying to say is that Bob wants to roll initiative before opening the door. His theory is that if the monsters go first, the monsters will all waste their turns because they have no targets. Then the PCs will be able to open the door on their next turn and the entire party will, effectively, always go first. I then pointed out that if we start playing this way (which would be a house rule we would have to adopt) whomever opens the door will be wasting a turn, the doorway will curtail their movement, and if the monsters heard them coming (which is almost a certainty given the party makeup) the monsters would just ready actions to guard the door, so doing initiative in this manner would actually disadvantage the party. Upon being told this, Bob threw a temper tantrum about biased calls and gave me the silent treatment.

You seem to be talking about starting the scene before opening the door (please correct me if I am wrong). This is fine with me. It really doesn't change anything about how the game is played except for making it slightly easier to pre-cast enchantments. It doesn't affect initiative, or have anything to do with defending against / hiding from unknown threats outside of combat as a free action, which is the real meat of what I wanted to discuss in this thread.

I agree, in general. And I suppose this is game system dependent, because you keep speaking of it being an "opposed test". But I guess my question about your game system is: "Does the PC have to already be aware of a specific group of enemies they are hiding from before attempting to hide?". And no, I'm not talking about "walking around all day long hiding from everything". I've already posted that this is absurd. I'm asking about "I'm going to go search that warehouse while remaining hidden from anyone who might be looking".

Sometimes, the way you describe this, and the specific terminology you use, makes me not completely certain where you are actually drawing that line. To me, someone can be "actively trying to avoid being seen" while doing some specific thing, without first having to know who is there and may be watching. Probably a minor quibble, but still worth mentioning.

Honestly, I don't know if a precise line can be drawn.

Generally, I would say that the act of hiding involves moving into cover / concealment and then remaining relatively motionless.

If you are standing out in the open in the middle of a battlefield, you are not hidden. But you can take an action to hide yourself, again by moving into concealment / cover, or if you are good enough (or have some sort of camouflage) just by standing still. This is the part Bob doesn't like.

Now, after you are hidden (or just not noticed by someone, although that's a bit fuzzier) you can then *sneak* past people by staying out of their line of sight and trying to make as little noise as possible.

I suppose neither hiding nor sneaking needs a target per se, but if you walk out of cover, or into their field of vision, or use a form of concealment that they can see through, you are going to have a really tough time of it compared to someone who keeps their opponent's perception in mind.

And again, this latter can be mitigated by distracting the opponent, which one's party would be able to do if one waited, but Bob also wants to always go first and be the one leading the charge.

Which, if we're going to loop back to the initiative issue, may be why the players seem to want to roll initiative early in the first place. If you are telling them that they can't take some actions until after initiative is rolled, their next step would be "Ok. We roll initiative before we open the door". I agree, that this is an absurd path to follow, but it's a path the players are going down in direct response to your own ruling on this.

Because they can't simultaneously be "hanging back with their shields drawn against potential threats" and "scrabbling to draw their weapons and get an attack of before their opponents". If they are rolling initiative normally, they are assumed to be doing the latter.

Game mechanically, the idea is you lose a turn of actions, but gain a temporary bonus to your defenses as a sort of trade-off. In this case, there is no trade-off; if you lose initiative you sacrifice nothing for a +4 bonus to AC against the enemies opening salvo. If you win initiative, well, you just don't defend and act normally, nothing ventured nothing gained. And of course, the poor guy who wins initiative and decided to use his turn to defend gains absolutely no advantage for having such quick reflexes over his comrades who lost initiative.

This really devalues both initiative and sneak attacks as game mechanics, as the winner is unlikely to do anything at all in their first turn.

And of course, if you allow it one round before combat, where do you draw the line? Why would guards not spend their entire shift in total defense? Why would adventurers not spend every free moment in the dungeon / wilderness in total defense?

Which, if we're going to loop back to the initiative issue, may be why the players seem to want to roll initiative early in the first place. If you are telling them that they can't take some actions until after initiative is rolled, their next step would be "Ok. We roll initiative before we open the door". I agree, that this is an absurd path to follow, but it's a path the players are going down in direct response to your own ruling on this.

Indeed. And this is the real discussion I intended to have with this thread. The stuff about enchantment durations was meant to be kind of a side topic that dominated everything.

As I mentioned up-thread, back in our 3E games the players would all ready actions before initiating combat for much the same benefit, rendering the entire concept of surprise and initiative meaningless.

IMO this is clearly a toxic game-play spiral rather than any form of intended play.

The easiest solution is obviously to restrict certain actions to in combat only and to say that only the DM has the right to call for initiative, but a lot of players think of that as tyrannical overreach.

To me, when you say they want to 'auto win initiative", I interpret that to mean that without having to roll anything, they are insisting that they get to take actions directly against their opponents first. But entering a defensivie stance isn't doing something to an enemy. Casting up a buff isn't doing anything to an enemy. Moving around and positioning themselves on their side of the door doesn't do something to an enemy.

Agreed. But I would argue that "total defense" is not "entering a defensive stance" it is specifically doing everything you can to defend yourselves from known enemies.

If you don't know where the enemies are or what form their attacks will take, its meaningless. Raising a shield will protect you fine from arrows, but will do nothing to bullets or dropped stones, or kobolds stabbing you in the knees, and will be actively detrimental to your attempts to dive for cover or what-not. Steeling oneself to block a punch is great, but if your enemies have knives not so much. Holding the enemies at bay with a spear works great, but will actively impede your ability to defend against enemies with slings or those that sneak up behind you or drop down from above. Etc.

I think part of the issue is that I'm trying to interpret what exactly you are saying here. But it seems like the entire issue really does derive from you being more restrictive about what and when the PCs can do certain things, than the players like. And it also seems like you are presenting the forum with the tail end of that conversation (and the most absurd requests/demands by the players) while kinda skirting around the initiating issues that lead down a path to that level of absurdity in the first place.

Way back in ye olden 3.5 days, we had people readying actions outside of combat to bypass initiative entirely and ensure they got the first turn. My ultimate ruling was that since the book specifically lists ready as a special combat action, you couldn't take it until combat had started and initiative had been rolled.

Fast forward to two years ago, and Bob is arguing that he should be able to hide (at some indeterminate point either 1 round or first thing in the morning, is varied) before combat begins and open every fight with a first turn backstab. My response to this was to say that if he wants to do that, its equally fair for the opponents to use defend as an action before combat begins, thus spoiling his sneak attack and then some.

Now, maybe in response to this, maybe not, Bob came up with a scheme to roll initiative one (or more) rounds before instigating the combat, and then hiding one one turn, and then having the rest of the party delay, and then on his next turn charging in and opening with a sneak attack and then having the rest of the party act immediately after him, thus making the initiative roll meaningless and ensuring the entire party gets to act before any of the monsters can take an offensive action.

Bob never actually did this as he isn't currently playing a rogue, he is playing a caster.

Early in the last session, I told the new kid that his rogue couldn't open a fight with a sneak attack by standing with the rest of the party and immediately charging in with the party, he would need to either hang back outside the room and sneak in after the rest of the party distracted the enemies, or sneak into the room before the rest of the party and hide inside. Bob then made some really nasty comments about how stupid and unfair my stealth rules are.

Then, in the last encounter of the session, I ruled that Bob would need to extend a spell cast before opening the door.

The next day, he told me over text that he was mad about said ruling, because it would also spoil his scheme to bypass initiative and guarantee a first turn sneak attack to the face, which he was (apparently) saving under his cap for the next time he played a rogue.

I'm not seeing the need for any ret-con here. You are defending yourself right up to the moment you begin to act offensively against the opponents in the room.

Ok. Imagine the following scenario:

GM: Ok, before rolling initiative, please tell me what your characters are planning on doing when the door opens:

Shiny Mcpaladin: I am going to enter the room and attempt to draw my foes attention, keeping my shield between me and them and parrying any blows that come way my way.
Stabby Mcbarbarian: I am going to charge headlong into the room and stab the nearest enemy as quickly as possible.
Cowardly McCleric: I am going to stay back and hide behind my shield, I can't take another hit!
GM: Ok, is anyone using "total defense" before opening the door?
All Three: Of course! there is no penalty for it, so we would be idiots not to!

*roll dice*

GM: Ok, Shiny Mcpaladin, you rolled a 20! You go first, are you sticking to your action?
Shiny Mcpaladin: Of course!
GM: Ok. Damn, what a waste of a nat 20! As you already had total defense going, you gain no benefit from winning initiative. Bet you are kicking yourself for taking improved initiative now, aren't you?
GM: Ok, Cowardly Mcleric, you rolled an 18, what do you do?
Cowardly Mcleric: Did I beat the monsters?
GM: Yep, they got a thirteen.
Cowardly Mcleric: Sweet! I charge into the room and cast power word smite!
GM: Ok. Roll for damage.
Stabby Mcbarbarian: Wait, why did he go first? I thought he was standing back and protecting himself with a shield.
GM: Total defense is a free action out of combat. Its not like it penalizes initiative or anything. Stop bitching and mark of 47 points of damage as the monsters take their turn. Good thing you are standing outside of the room hiding behind your shield!
Stabby Mcbarbarian: But I was charging into the room! I don't even have a shield...
GM: Then why did you take a pre-combat total defense?
Stabby Mcbarbarian: Because its a free defense bonus with no cost! Only an idiot wouldn't use it before every combat, and indeed every free moment! Anyway, can I charge into the room now?
GM: Yes.

Narratively that just looks silly and takes away the potential the potential to RP by having a clearly optimal mechanical solution.
Mechanically, its a really clunky rule that requires a lot of GM interpretation (how often is too often? How long can you keep it up for?) and makes both initiative and stealth a lot less important.

I'm not at all sure how this is a "betrayal of what the ability represents". So, I can switch from defending one round to attacking the next, and that's not a problem, but I can't switch from defending the round before combat (when I know it's about to happen), and attacking in the first round? Why? In neither case am I able to both get the defensive bonus and attack at the same time. The only difference is that by your ruling, the PCs can't prepare for a "likely threat" from a "likely direction" until after they have directly encounted that threat, rolled initiative, and are able to act based on that initiative.

Mechanically, the ability is trading actions for a temporary boost to defense. If you allow it to be used out of combat, it is now just a static +4 bonus against the first round of attacks from enemies who beat you in initiaitve with no downside or trade-off.

In character, it represents focusing on defending from a specific threat, which is impossible if you don't know what or where your opponents are or how they are attacking.

If you are just on guard with your shield drawn and ready for likely threats, well that's just normal AC. That's why you get your shield and dex bonus rather than being caught flat-footed.

If you are actively hiding outside of the room or behind your shield, you should absolutely not then be able to win initiative and be the first one into the room and attacking.


Now, a far more reasonable situation though, and one that is too me more of a (narrative if not mechanical) gray area is a regiment of soldiers forming a shield-wall as they stand on the battlefield waiting for the order to charge. But mechanically, that still minimizes the roll of initiative and raises the question of how long they can stay in such a state of hyper-vigilance if the order to charge doesn't come right away.

Yes. Absolutely. If you make no other change, you need to change this.

If you say so.

I agree that it should be changed, but its only come up once in the entire campaign, and is hardly the root of all problems which this thread is making it out to be.

It is really only useful for terrain manipulation magic, which is itself not terribly useful unless you already know the layout of the battlefield and the enemies that you will be fighting.

I suppose at higher levels it might become more relevant if Bob starts casting contingent or hung spells.

I think a big part of it not coming up is that the party has been strongly opposed to any sort of reconnaissance, and so they don't know what sort of preparations, if any, will be needed for the next room. Hopefully if I change it, I can make them realize the extra value of reconnaissance.

One of the reasons I ruled the way I did is because I knew Bob was just wasting his spell because the monster in the room was too big to follow them through the doorway into the area he was magically defending and I (wrongfully), assumed he would realize that once he entered said room and saw the size of the monster in question.

I'm also not sure I'd maintain a "1 room, 1 scene" dynamic either (again though, this may work for you based on other game factors). I tend to see a "scene" as any of a sequence of actions that are part of a single larger action. It's really more like "modes" maybe? So I might have "exploring the dungeon" be a single scene. As long as they are wandering around from room to room, searching the areas, looking for things, they are in a single "scene". The moment they encounter something of note, however, a new scene begins. Note that this begins the moment they are aware that there is something 'different" than what they've been doing previously. So they enter a room, and there's some strange glowing pedestal in it, with runes, and making odd noises, or whatever. They make note of this. May decide to take specific actions in response to it, etc. That's a "new scene". But wandering from room to room, doing the same searches, and the same movements, and encountering the same dust and cobwebs? Don't need a new scene for each of those.

Dunno. It's not a big deal to me though. Can break those up however you wish. However, I do strongly suggest that a new scene should always start the moment the PCs begin acting in response to some "new thing". Those actions should be considered part of the scene involving said "new thing", and not the scene they were in prior to discovering its existence.

Sorry to be nit-picky, but this method actually sounds more restrictive than equating each room with a new scene.

I'm talking about you placing NPCs into a room in your dungeon, designed to be a "balanced encounter" (or set of encounters for a whole day if we count several such rooms), but only if both sides start "from scratch" with little or no prep ahead of time. But then your players decide to stop and cast a bunch of spells and want to take actions ahead of opening the door to the room, and you realize that this will make the encounter easier than you thought it should be, so you make rulings to restrict what they can do in their prep.

Ok. I agree with you that I do that, but that is literally the opposite of "balancing on the fly". Its having consistent rules and not changing them when they would become inconvenient.

As I said above, if anything I think I am too inflexible a GM.

That's what I'm talking about. And yes, I fully put "I'm going to create a scene break between this side of the door and ther other, so it's impossible for them to prep buffs without spending more on a longer duration" as part of "making it harder for them (the PCs)". Or not allowing them to take some actions because those are "combat actions and you can't take them until iniative is rolled", even if they are maybe actions or abilities that don't require an active NPC target to use (or, again, you require them to use some sort of extension to use these while on one side of the door, if they want to use them on the other).

Ok, maybe you can give me some insight into Bob's psychology here, because he said the exact same thing.

Why is this harder for the PCs?

The NPCs have the same restrictions.

They don't start the fight with magical defenses (unless they applied the appropriate metamagic) and don't start the fight with readied actions and a +4 bonus to AC (or my system's equivalent).

(My players also bitch that the NPCs have an unfair advantage in having well-rounded builds, because unlike players they aren't hyper-min-maxed. There is nothing stopping the players the players from making more well-rounded builds, but for some reason its unfair when the NPCs do it.)

If you allowed the new scene to start the moment they encounter the door and decide to do something with it then the entire problem (and conflation of scene and combat and initiative roll) disappears. Which is why I keep going back to this as the key initiating factor here.

Despite the fact that we have been having arguments about readying actions outside of combat for twenty years, arguments about stealth outside of combat for two years, and have only been doing this dungeon crawl for about four months now, and nobody even brought up the issue until the last combat of the last session?

Well. Clearly it was more than just one question, and your answer, and then it all stopped, right? Clearly, your answer sparked some degree of disagreement, which lead to a series of back and forth and ended with an argument. I mean, at some point in that progression your table got to some point where Bob was wanting to do something that you considered "auto-winning initiative", right? So it was more than just what you are saying.

There was no more discussion at the gaming table.

The back and forth argument occurred over text the next day.

I get the brain fart. We've all had them. But at some point in this progression, there should have been some re-assessment of the snap answer you gave, which should have resulted in a better ruling and avoided the bulk of that argument.

No, not really.

The bulk of the argument was about hiding in plain sight being a free action.

My ruling that initiative is rolled when the door opens did nothing to inspire or enable Bob's crazy scheme to bypass initiative. Indeed, he was mad about the ruling because it *prevented* his initiative scheme.

If there's a pattern I've seen in your posts about problems with your group, it's that you seem to make snap judgements/rulings to deal with an issue "in the moment", that creates conflict and that (in most cases) you regret making after the fact, due to unforseen side effects that occur. And sure, this isn't helped by Bob, who seems to play rules lawyer on you all the time.

I don't see it.

I can't think of more than a handful of times when I regretted a call in hindsight, and most people seem to think that I am very stubborn and hesitant to admit I am wrong.

I guess I can look over some of my old threads to look for examples, and again if you can jog my memory about any specifics that might be helpful for future introspection.

I'm not sure what this has to do with opening a door and prepping use of skills/spells/abilities prior to doing so. Are you saying that, upon encountering a situation which may result in a combat, you are not allowing him to declare that he is "hiding in the shadows (or equivalent)" just prior to the party opening the door? Because that's a very different situation than "hide once at the start of the adventuring day, and then remain hidden until combat started".

Honestly, that would depend on the circumstances though. If there are shadows or other places to hide, Bob should be able to declare "I'm hiding in shadows" right before the door is opened. And yeah, based on his initiative roll, he should then be able to slip into the room using his stealth bonus, and, if he's not spotted, be able to sneak up behind someone and attack them with whatever bonuses that entails.

If you are insisting that Bob can't even attempt to start hiding until after combat starts, and iniative is rolled, then yeah, I think he's kinda got a point here. If he has a reason to expect they are about to get into a fight, and states "I'm going to hide in the bushes/shadows/whatever", then he should absolutely be able to do that (other conditions permitting of course). This does not mean he can simply declare "I'm hiding all day", and get those benefits if the party stumbles into a fight with no warning.

Again, let's look at this from a mechanical and a narrative perspective:

Narrative: He is outside the room. The enemy can't see him. What does it matter if there are shadows or if he spent six seconds hiding in them before the door was opened? Why does that have any bearing on his ability to slip through the door and walk up to the enemies unnoticed?

Game Play: If there is no action cost to hiding before combat, and no penalty to sneaking for walking through a watched door, why doesn't everyone do it? Sure, most people won't succeed, but roll enough dice, and a fair percentage of random mooks and party fighters will still succeed enough to make the dedicated rogue feel less special. And I don't think game-play will be improved by having both sides having a mass stealth dice off before the fight, or for each side to keep track of multiple hidden guys sneaking around the battlefield every encounter.

As I have said multiple times, if Bob (or any other character) wants to either hang back and wait until the enemies are distracted by fighting the rest of the party OR sneak into the room before combat and find a hiding place within, that is perfectly fine. But he is not going to be able to run in through the door directly at the monsters seconds after it is kicked open and at the center of attention. (Although his last rogue was good enough that he could do exactly that most of the time, but he didn't think it fair that he even had to risk failing the roll).

If you are ruling that Bob's initial backstab (before anyone else is even aware of him) counts as his action in the first melee round, and now everyone else gets to act in reponse, then I'd also side with him that that's an insane ruling as well. I'm again speculating here, but you comment about "getting two rounds" during an ambush suggests this is the exact situation (or at least something very similar).

Ok. This appears to be something we legitimately disagree about.

While it is possible in Heart of Darkness to get two turns in a row when ambushing, it is unlikely.

I don't find it "insane" conceptually, and there are a lot of games where attacking reveals you. Heck, in standard D&D this will only ever happen in a surprise round.

From a game-play perspective, it could cause some really unfun game-play; a monster attacking ambush has a really good chance of outright killing a squishy PC if it can reliably get two turns of attacks in a row on them without the rest of the party being able to help. Likewise, one could build an initiative monster PC (or NPC) who alternates sneak-attacking and hiding every other round and his opponents can never target him, meaning the entire rest of the party is best served either letting him solo every combat or (better yet) making copy-cat characters and joining in.

If you're going even further and stating that once Bob sneaks into position, but before he backstabs, that he and everyone else rolls initiative and all act in that order, then that's even further into "insane ruling" territory. Again, the concept (to me anyway) is not that Bob should "automatically win initiative" in that situation, but that he should not have to roll at all. There is no intiative, since there are not yet two sides both aware of the other and both trying to take actions against each other. it's just him, hiding behind someone, and stabbing them. He always gets to "go first" in that situation. And yes, then combat begins (assuming there are other enemies around aware of what just happened), and that prompts an initiative roll, and yes, Bob could certainly roll better and be able to act again before anyone reacts.

I agree, that would be insane, and is not how the rules work.

The only way I can see this happening is (as I said upthread) if he needs to move into position before making the attack and bombs his roll to move silently.

Except, as I pointed out above, that both have a lot to do with "when a combat starts", and "when we roll initiative".

And if they don't have anything to do with each other, why are you talking about it? You don't "win" the argument over the most recent issue, by dredging up other things Bob has argued or done in the past. This is not about picking "sides" that we like or agree with in general. It's about assessing the actions and decisions made in this situation. The past just doesnt' matter.

We have been having an ongoing fight about stealth for two years, and an ongoing fight about readying actions outside of combat for 20 years.

The stealth issue flared up early in the last session.

The issue with extended spells occurred late in the last session.

The idea that the party could roll initiative whenever they want and therefore do so outside of the door and unopposed was brought up to me the next day, and (presumably) inspired by the stealth issue, and (unwittingly) foiled by the ruling on extended spells.

They are all inter-twined, and I didn't feel like starting three separate advice threads with very similar subjects.

Again, both issues share the element of "I'm not going to let you enter combat already using abilities that I think might be too useful for combat". It's a valid discussion IMO.

Yes, they are related issues. That's why I brought them both up in the same post.

That does not mean that one directly caused the other.

This was either the first time this exact situation occurred (where they wanted to prep prior to opening a door and entering combat), or it was not. You have suggested in your previous posts, that this had not come up before. So yeah, it was an "on the fly" ruling, since this was the first time it came up (or was relevant).

Something doesn't have to be an exact situation to be a consistent ruling.

I had been treating each room as a separate act all campaign.

During the last session, Bob wanted to cast an enchantment immediately before opening the door, for the first time all campaign, and asked if it being a new act meant that he needed to extend, and I said yes, in keeping with my decision that each room counted as a separate act.

And there were no other questions or disagreement at all during the actual fight? That seems... odd.

There was no discussion by him (at the table) about "taking actions outside of the room"? What was he talking about then? He sure seems to think that he was doing things prior to entering the room, and thus prior to rolling for initiative. So yeah. I can't really comment on this except to say that it feels like there's some facts missing from this description.

If there is any additional context, I certainly didn't notice / remember it.

There was no further argument during the initial fight, although I am sure Bob said something to make his displease known at the time.

As I have said above, arguments about readied actions outside of combat have occurred on and off for 20 years (although only when we play D&D), and fights about hiding in plain sight being a free action have been on and off for the last two years (and occurred earlier in the session).

The next day Bob told me that he *would have* bypassed initiative by rolling it unopposed outside of the room before the enemies were on the board, but my ruling that each room was a separate encounter ruined that. I tried to get him to elaborate more, but he was extremely angry and refused to continue discussing the subject. Maybe I can get him to tell me more over time, but its unlikely, he tends to hold grudges for years if not decades.

Yeah. It's not what I'm saying. I'm maybe suggesting that if the players do something you weren't prepared for, or don't have an existing rule that applies perfectly to, maybe just allow them to do what they are trying to do? Then take some time (and perhaps discussion with your group) and decide on the "correct ruling going forward".

Your game will survive the players having one "easy win because the players thought of a rule interpretation (or combination of game actions) you didn't consider". You are the GM. You can always create more monsters, more encounters, and anything else you want. What your game cannot survive (much of anyway) is a constant back and forth of "You shouldn't be able to do that, but I can't think of the right reason why at the moment, so I'll come up with some rule/decision to prevent it", followed by a series of arguments, and you then reconsidering the ruling or decision you made after the fact anyway.

Again. Maybe the whole "scene starts at the door" thing was something you already decided. But it certainly seems like this was the first time someone said "hey. Um... Shouldn't our prep for this fight on the other side of the door count as the same scene as us fighting what's on the other side of the door", and you made the decision that "No, it doesn't, so you have to extend the duration on your spells/whatever if you want them to still be up a couple rounds from now when you open the door". if the issue never came up before, then this was the "point of decision" in which you were making a ruling on that.

And IMO, you ruled poorly. The players were absolutely correct. The prep they do ahead of opening the door should count as the same scene/encounter as whatever happens on the other side of that door. And in retrospect, you seem to agree that this should have been the case (setting aside the absurdity of "auto-win initiative" whatever that actually entailed).

Next time. Just give them the win. Then adjust your rules to account for whatever you and your players decide is the best way to handle this going foward.

Well, in this case the "easy win" would have been wasting a point of mana casting a spell trying to prevent a creature that was already too big to leave the room from leaving the room.

On a more general principle, I think I disagree.

As you said above, people value consistency.

If someone comes up with some weird rules exploit at the table, I would prefer the GM shoot it down right away. This is regardless of whether I am the GM, the player in question, or someone else at the table.

People get extremely upset when they feel like something is being taken away from them.

Players also get extremely jealous of one another.

Players also are often of the "give 'em an inch and they take a mile" type. I don't know how many times I have seen a player say that because the GM allowed one semi-legal rules exploit or piece of third party content, that they must allow EVERY semi-legal rules exploit or piece of third party content.

I don't know how many times I have hand-waived a rule because it was meaningless tedium at the time, but then enforced the rule later when it actually matted (for example the above mentioned rolling to hit when assassinating the emperor vs. hunting bunnies for stew) and the players threw a tantrum and called me biased or a hypocrite.

I remember one time as a teenager in my first 3E campaign we discovered how broken the item creation rules were by RAW. We had a long discussion with the DM, and he assured us that the items creation rules were fine. So I took the craft wondrous item feat, and saved up a bunch of gold and xp in game, and spent a bunch of time OOC coming up with all the cool custom items I was going to make, and got really invested in the idea of playing fantasy Iron Man. And then when it came time to start crafting them, the DM told me that upon closer consideration, that he agreed custom items were broken and would be banned in his game. So my feat, as well as all the time I had spent designing cool items, was wasted, and all my enthusiasm turned to bitter disappointment. That was just about the angriest I have ever been at the gaming table and (I say this part with shame, and please understand that I was an emotionally unstable teen at the time) I went home and punched out one of my bedroom windows in a fit of rage, and still have the scars on my arm.


Right now, if I ever run a published RPG, I generally have a "core rules only" policy, and anything beyond that is strictly "white list only" because I know how powerful disappointment can be.





Well, I failed to make a shorter post, but at least I hope I managed a friendlier tone.

[Morgaln]

My system is a bit different than D&D in that initiative and surprise are combined into a single roll, but in short, failing means that you roll lower than the monsters did, meaning that over the course of the fight you effectively get one less turn than they do.

Spoiler: Summary of Heart of Darkness Initiative Rules for Anyone who cares

Show

Initiative is determined by dexterity + perception and modified by certain merits, flaws, and magic.
Hidden characters get +4.
Initiating combat unexpectedly gives +2.
Having a greater reach than your opponent gives +2.
Needing to move before acting gives -2.
Having a weapon holstered gives -2. The Quick-Draw skill can negate this penalty of even turn it into a bonus.
Having a readied action gives between -6 and +6 depending on how close your readied action adheres to what you end up doing.

Only the players roll initiative. The difficulty is equal to 10 + the most common initiative score of all the enemies present.

Success allows your character to take a turn before the enemies.
All characters take a turn together after the enemies.
Success by more than 20 creates a true surprise round, before combat you get a bonus action against which the enemies cannot defend.
Failure by more than 20 means you are truly surprised and cannot act or defend yourself until the enemy has acted twice.

Thanks for those alternate systems! While I doubt they are right for my current group / system, they do give me some good ideas for the future!

Ah, now the the wording you used makes more sense. I also understand better why your players are trying to autowin initiative. Winning initiative is a major bonus in this game, with no tradeoff from what I can tell. You kinda did bring that on yourself by having a system where failing initiative can have major consequences. Knowing what I do about your group from previous posts, obviously they will try to prevent those negative consequences by any means necessary.

I admit I don't quite understand all the modifiers; the general description makes it sound like initiative is something players roll once at the start of combat (surprise can only happen at that time, after all). However, many of the modifiers sound like something that would apply from turn to turn, suggesting that initiative is rerolled every turn. I had to think about how this might even work; let me know if I am close here:
Players roll initiative at the start of combat. This determines base initiative order. At the start of every turn, everyone announces what they want to do this turn (my guess is, you're doing this the way WoD does, with lowest initiative announcing first). Then the above modifiers apply and change the base initiative order to the initiative order for this turn.

If this is correct, the one thing I can't quite parse is the readied action. The way I usually understand readied actions is, when your turn comes around you decide not to act right away but hold your action to react to someone who has yet to go. But that means it shouldn't apply either a bonus or penalty, because you don't know whether your readied action will actually get triggered until long after initiative has been determined. So there has to be something I'm not aware of here.

Since monsters don't roll, do they have a fixed initative score they get slotted at?

[gbaji]

Ah, now the the wording you used makes more sense. I also understand better why your players are trying to autowin initiative. Winning initiative is a major bonus in this game, with no tradeoff from what I can tell. You kinda did bring that on yourself by having a system where failing initiative can have major consequences. Knowing what I do about your group from previous posts, obviously they will try to prevent those negative consequences by any means necessary.

I admit I don't quite understand all the modifiers; the general description makes it sound like initiative is something players roll once at the start of combat (surprise can only happen at that time, after all). However, many of the modifiers sound like something that would apply from turn to turn, suggesting that initiative is rerolled every turn. I had to think about how this might even work; let me know if I am close here:
Players roll initiative at the start of combat. This determines base initiative order. At the start of every turn, everyone announces what they want to do this turn (my guess is, you're doing this the way WoD does, with lowest initiative announcing first). Then the above modifiers apply and change the base initiative order to the initiative order for this turn.

Yeah. I got the same impression. I get now why Bob complained that he "lost a turn", since apparently, if you win initiative in this system, you get to go twice? Or are we both misreading that?

Also confused by some of the modifiers. Maybe Talakeal can clarify: Is initiative rolled once at the begining of the combat, and everyone just keeps using the same number over and over, or is it rolled each round?

Also, Talakeal, it seems as though maybe the problem here is that it's somewhat muddled and confused as to exactly what "initiative" actually is supposed to represent in this game. In D&D, it's purely about "what order do we go in the round". Nothing else. It does not at all have anything with "what you do in that round, when your turn comes up". That's where I think some of the disagreement/confusion about something like "total defense" came up. You asked a question, referencing the D&D action, and I answered based on how D&D handles things.

But in D&D, your "action" starts when your initiative comes up, and lasts until your initiative comes up in the next round. So you don't first say "I'm defending myself" and then roll initiative and have the fact that you are "defending" somehow mean you act later in the round. You start by rolling initiative. You may do *nothing* until your turn comes up. Until your intiative comes up, you are doing whatever you were doing the previous round. Only when your turn comes up, do you now get to say "I'm using total defense" and take the +4 to AC (but can't attack,since you are spending the entire round "defending". You can, I believe, take a 5' move though).

That "action" lasts until your characters initiative number comes up in the next round. At that point, you may change your action to something else (like attacking, moving, whatever). The reason I said that characters should be allowed to choose to be in "total defense" mode prior to starting a combat, is that this allows us to simulate them "defending against potential attacks" while doing something like opening a door or whatever, but the moment they do anything else (ie: when their initiative number comes up, they move in and attack), they are now not gaining any benefit of the total defense action (cause that's no longer their action). Thus, the only effect it has is to give the PCs a bit of extra defense against attacks that hit them, in the very first round of combat, before they have had any chance to actually choose any other action. Which, to me, seems perfectly reasonable.

My answer would be entirely different if the game system handled something like this differently. If, for example, you first declare what you are doing that round "I'm running in and attacking", or "I'm going to move over and pull the lever", or "I'm hiding behind my sheild" (a "statement of intent" kind of thing), then we could argue that you start the round doing those things, and that those things affect your bonuses all round long (before and after initiative), and last until the end of the round. This seems to be what you are assuming when you said that because someone was talking "total defense" as an action, they therefore could not "win initiative". This is very different because if someone declares "I'm using total defense" at the beginning of the round, then yes, they would simply not be able to later on, move into the room and attack.

You seem to be assuming that initiative is about being offensive (ie: "scrambling to attack the other person first"). But that's not what it is in most games. It's merely "who goes in what order". When your turn comes, what you actually do can be anything at all.


I'm honestly curious. Which method does Heart of Darkness actually use? Does the action you are taking affect your initiative? And is the assumption that "initiative is about how agressive you are"? Cause that's not at all what most of us assume is the case. And if there's any ambiguity or confusion about this, this may reflect a serious flaw in the game system itself. Either you are having everyone pick a "stance" at the beginning of the round, which affects everything (including order of actions, and apparently how many actions they get that round), or you roll initiative first and *then* decide what you are doing as the round progresses. Any confusion or muddling of those two (very different) approaches, is going to be a problem.

This bit highlights this confusion:

GM: Ok, Shiny Mcpaladin, you rolled a 20! You go first, are you sticking to your action?
Shiny Mcpaladin: Of course!
GM: Ok. Damn, what a waste of a nat 20! As you already had total defense going, you gain no benefit from winning initiative. Bet you are kicking yourself for taking improved initiative now, aren't you?
GM: Ok, Cowardly Mcleric, you rolled an 18, what do you do?
Cowardly Mcleric: Did I beat the monsters?
GM: Yep, they got a thirteen.
Cowardly Mcleric: Sweet! I charge into the room and cast power word smite!
GM: Ok. Roll for damage.
Stabby Mcbarbarian: Wait, why did he go first? I thought he was standing back and protecting himself with a shield.
GM: Total defense is a free action out of combat. Its not like it penalizes initiative or anything. Stop bitching and mark of 47 points of damage as the monsters take their turn. Good thing you are standing outside of the room hiding behind your shield!
Stabby Mcbarbarian: But I was charging into the room! I don't even have a shield...
GM: Then why did you take a pre-combat total defense?
Stabby Mcbarbarian: Because its a free defense bonus with no cost! Only an idiot wouldn't use it before every combat, and indeed every free moment! Anyway, can I charge into the room now?
GM: Yes.

You seem to be mixing up both types of initiative/action rule types here:

If we examine this from a "you declare your action at the beginning, and then roll initiative:

All 3 characters have declared "total defense". They spend the entire round doing nothing but defending themselves. This "action" (and effects) act on initiative 20, 18, 13, 9 (or whatever the barbarian got), etc... all the way to zero. Doesn't matter when they go, or what order they go. All 3 characters cannot attack this round, and must only stand there defending themselves. So there is no "I get a defensive bonus, but then also get to attack" as you suggested.

So...
Paladin stands and defends.
Cleric stands and defends.
Monsters run up and attack, but against opponents with +4 AC.
Barbarian stands and defends.

On the next round, assuming they want to like ever actually defeat the opponents, some or all of them will have to switch to an offensive action, losing the bonus AC, but gaining the ability to attack.

If we examine this from a "you roll initiative first, then decide what to do when yout turn comes":

All three characters declare that prior to combat, they enter a "total defence" action, then roll initiative as in your example.

Paladin gets a 20. He goes first, and takes "half move into the room, blocking any enemy attack (fighting defensively, but not in "total defense", so he gets a -4 penalty to attacks, but +2 to AC per D&D rules). Note, the moment his initiative turn comes around, he stops acting in "total defense" and begins his new actions, which now affect everything from this point in the round on.

Cleric gets an 18. He goes second, and take a half move into the room and casts power word strike, dishing out some damage to the NPCs. Note, just as with the Paladin, the Cleric is no longer in "total defense". He's doing a "move action" and an "spell action" this round.

NPCS get a 13. They go next. Some attack the paladin (who moved up to them and attacked already, though at a minus). The paladin has a +2 AC against them, again not because of the "total defense" action declared before the fight started, but because the paladin switched to "fighting defensively" and took a hit to his to-hit in order to avoid some damage. Some others run up and attack the Cleric, and can attack normally, since the Cleric is currently in "move/spellcast" action. Yet others run up and attack the Barbarian who is still in total defense because he hasn't actually gone yet, so is still doing the same "action" he began before the fight started.

Barbarian gets a 9 (or whatever). He goes last. Since his opponents politely moved up to him, he switches to full attack (gaining the benefit of more attacks if he has them). He already got the benefit of his defense earlier in the round, and now gets to attack.

Note that for those who "won initiative", the decision to enter combat in "total defense" was meaningless. That defense disappears the moment their initiative comes around, and they choose to do something different. The only one this benefited was the slow barbarian, who was still standing around waiting to act when the NPCs attacked.

Your example seems to muddle both of these different initiative methods up though. You have them declaring "total defense" as a free action, and acting as though it affects them for the entire round, but then also having the cleric declare he's defending himself, but he actually moves in and casts a spell. You then have the NPCs appear to be doing massive damage to the Barbarian (and not the cleric?) despite the cleric being in the room and no longer defendinng himself, while the barbarian is outside and still defending himself (and let's drop the whole "do I have a shield bit").

The idea is that the "trade off" is "I get to run in and attack first, but I don't get a bonus to AC" versus "I get a bonus to AC on the first round, but I don't get to attack until after the NPCs".

And yeah, the specific case I'm envisioning for this is some kind of door/barricade is about to be opened, and the moment it does, a bunch of NPCs are on the other side, firing arrows at you. It seems reasonable to me that you could choose to defend yourself against the arrows, until you actually start moving in towards the NPCs to attack them. It seems logically tactical to block/hide from the volley of arrows (gaining some defense against it), then charge forward to attack.

That may seem like just a tradoff, but lets imagine another case where you are doing nothing but defending against the volley of arrows coming in:

You enter the combat saying "I'm doing nothing but defending myself". But the rules don't allow you to do that until initiative is reached. So you roll poorly, the NPCs riddle you with arrows and *then* you raise your shield to block them. I mean, we can imagine scenarios where a character (maybe the NPC we're trying to protect from the bad guys in some kind of escort mission type thing), might take a "total defense" action and nothing else. We should be able to declare that action for the NPC before the fight starts if we have a little bit of warning.

And it should not matter between that situation and "I'm just going to defend myself from the initial stuff that may happen before my initiative turn comes around, but then will attack normally". Realistically, we don't actually know what any given character will do from round to round, so if one person can 'enter the fight in total defense mode", then everyone should be allowed to do so.

Again though, you have to pick one of those types of systems and make sure everything "works" with it. This is only a problem if you completly muddle up the rules as you did. When played in an actual game, with actual rules that are designed to handle this (like D&D's actual "total defense" action and D&Ds actual initiative rules), the whole thing works just fine. Yeah. It gives a bonus to folks on the very first round of combat until they actually get to start doing something. But then again, the NPCs get to use this too, so I'm not really seeing the problem.


I will address this bit:

What I was trying to say is that Bob wants to roll initiative before opening the door. His theory is that if the monsters go first, the monsters will all waste their turns because they have no targets. Then the PCs will be able to open the door on their next turn and the entire party will, effectively, always go first. I then pointed out that if we start playing this way (which would be a house rule we would have to adopt) whomever opens the door will be wasting a turn, the doorway will curtail their movement, and if the monsters heard them coming (which is almost a certainty given the party makeup) the monsters would just ready actions to guard the door, so doing initiative in this manner would actually disadvantage the party. Upon being told this, Bob threw a temper tantrum about biased calls and gave me the silent treatment.

Ok. That's not at all what you said in your post, but whatever. I'll respond to this.

All reasonable points. But I guess the question I have been trying to get answered is "why does Bob want to do this?". There must be some reason why the existing initiative system isn't working for him. I can only speculate as to what that may be (although some of your comments about the hide/sneak rules, combined with the "hidden" bonus to initiative does seem to hint in a direction).

You say that this would require a house rule, but what are the current rules then? So, they kick open the door first and then "combat begins"? Then what? Everyone declares an action and we roll initiative? Or we roll initiative and folks take actions when their turn comes (question I asked above)? It would seem to me that if the bonuses for "readied actions" and "unexpected combat" (plus dex/perception) were sufficient to most often result in them winning initiative in a situation like this, then I'd assume Bob wouldn't be making such a stink about this. So something is not working. Maybe figure out what it is and address it.

Again, as I've said previously, Bob's desire to "roll initiative before the combat so we always win" is a symptom of a problem. You need to figure out what the problem actually is. Now maybe Bob is just an eternal min/maxer and trying to always game things to his benefit and can be ignored (though I've found most folks trying to do this, know they are doing it, and don't actually get upset when you say no. It's more of a "try it and see if the GM will let me get away with it" stuff). But it's also possible that some function of your game rules and game rulings is creating situations where his build isn't working the way he expects, and he may have legitimate concerns about this.

[Quertus]

Talakeal, we’re back to the rule, “police always start a scene with their weapon holstered”. It’s a great rule, very thematic for police, and you should apply it to your understanding of a scene. If you declare a scene break in such a way that this would produce nonsensical results, then you have probably defined a scene / your scene boundaries in a way that is nonsensical.

More generally, in this thread, you seem to be switching back and forth between Simulationist and Gamist logic, and choosing whichever is worst for your players. Or, put another way, it looks like players’ plans will fail if either the rules or common sense take issue with their actions.

Now, that’s not an inherently bad thing. Don’t get me wrong. There can definitely be instances of rules and scenarios where that is perfectly valid. However, I think it’s incompatible with your group. And I also think it’s incompatible with your personal skill set, as your concept of what is “realistic”… as at least one item in the chain of your concept of what is realistic, your ability to express it, and your ability to have a reasonable and productive conversation with your players about disconnects, is lacking. And, based on your numerous threads, I’ll add that I don’t think it’s a good thing to combine with your particular argumentation style, either.

From your descriptions, what would I do in your shoes? Hmmm…

At will abilities: you say it doesn’t make sense at the Narrative level. I disagree. In the D&D cartoon, when Venger used his at will “warlock Eldridge blast” to light the way when walking down a dark corridor? That wasn’t breaking the world building, that was cool! (I think it’s why one of my players went warlock, in fact.) I see no reason not to just let them, with the following caveats: 1) Venger’s arm should have gotten tired from being held out so long… and that should matter in the game as much as the PCs bathroom breaks (ie, presumably, not at all); 2) just as Venger was limited to half speed while lighting his own way, so, too, must any associated costs of continuously casting the spell (noise, visuals, components, magic residue, arm waving, Venger holding his arm out, action cost, whatever) be paid.

Stealth: contrary to your “what good does it do to hide right before the door is opened”, if I were to apply my own sense of realism, I would argue that one can only hide if they’re hidden before the door is opened. And I would be wrong. Because I’ve seen people with the skills to remove themselves from their opponents’ perception in the middle of combat. I don’t really understand it, but I do acknowledge that it’s a thing. Sigh. And it sounds like it’s also counted for in your rules. So, ultimately, I would ignore what I personally understand about stealth, and just allow stealth “whenever”/“always”… with the following caveats: 1) “Move Silently” can be attempted approximately always, including “all day all the time”; 2) “Hide” functions / can be successfully attempted whenever there is an obstacle / distraction (so “in shadows”, “behind cover”, “in combat”, “when Aphrodite is visible”, “when someone else takes the ‘distract’ action”, etc, all qualify); 3) (if I understand your system) “Hidden” is not a state - “attempting to hide” and “hidden from X” are states -> when encountering / coming within LoS of foes (or anyone, really) they roll perception (or whatever) to see if they spot the “attempting to hide” character, producing the set of “hidden from X” states; 4) hiding from infravision, tremor sense, scent, etc, is presumed to auto-fail by those without such senses of their own (or, in the case of scent, unless explicit precautions are taken), unless otherwise noted; 5) beings who perceive a character attempting to hide will respond accordingly (this matters very little in a dungeon setting, where presumably the monsters and the party are already trying to kill one another as the default, and “Guy who hides” is less of a target than “Guy who looks like a Wizard” (and may even occasionally be intentionally ignored as a potential noncom (at least unless they are visibly armed / until they make their first attack))); 6) maintaining any active stealth stance (so not “hiding in a box”) carries roughly the same costs as maintaining any other stance (presumably, there are no rules for this, so the answer is “none” at the moment).

Also, as your concept of hiding seems most like “Hide in Shadows”, I disagree that one must hide “from someone”. Or Hunger Games cake decorator didn’t exactly intentionally hide from his ally, he just made himself camouflaged and difficult to spot. Boo didn’t intentionally hide from most of the monsters (at first), she was just small and hard to spot.

Pre-combat actions: let’s say I know Combat is about to start. I can absolutely grab my Machine Gun, and sit inside the tank, waiting for Bob to open the door before I pop my gun out and start shooting. What does sitting inside the tank give me? +infinite AC (attacks against me auto-fail) and infinite SR (spells have no line of sight and (presumably therefore) auto-fall). If I roll High (“win initiative” - for the record, I’m on your side on this turn of phrase making perfect sense in context, Talakeal) (EDIT: I just read your initiative rules - I agreed with you before reading them, and agree even more with your wording now, I guess), I pop out (or, at least, my gun pops out) before the opponents get to go, and they can attack me with their first action; if I roll low and “lose initiative”, they have to wait until their second volley before I become a valid target. Any explanation that doesn’t involve understanding this, that makes this sound more complex than what I just said, is suboptimal, and should be discarded, ignored, or upgraded.

Talking Strategy: I would explicitly tell your players that, to facilitate cooperation and to reduce misunderstandings, that I'm willing to allow (roughly unlimited) OOC conversations about tactics, including asking clarifying questions of the GM. The PCs are welcome to have any IC conversations they would like to have about tactics, and the players are welcome to tell me that they want all such conversations to be IC, if that's what they want. I would explain that I am explicitly willing to not count such conversations against stealth etc, if they so desire. (Myself, as a player, I wouldn't like this rule much, and would happily side with any other player who wanted to abolish it for realism / roleplay reasons; however, as GM, I can totally see your point for wanting to allow it, which is why I would explicitly do so, and explicitly tell the players that they have that option.)

Now, going back to the idea of multiple points of failure: it sounds (and correct me if I’m wrong) like you not only have a “raw and common sense can both cause a plan to fail / an action must pass both”, but also a “things last the lower of physical time and narrative time” double fail state. That is, as Spell can end when the GM calls “scene”, *and* it can end mid-scene if the physical duration expires. If so, I’d say that also doesn’t sound good for your group, and you should do away with one of the other.

Setting aside Bizarro World for a moment, would I want to run a system with “spells have multiple duration considerations”, “stealth works everywhere, including in the middle of combat even if you’ve already been spotted, except when walking through a doorway at the start of combat” levels of wonkiness? Well… no. And it’s not because of the complexity - I prefer rules- heavy systems. I don’t dislike complexity. It’s because I dislike needless complexity. I don’t see how the added complexity here really adds anything to the game over more simplified “you can hide, period” / “all durations are measured in the same / in exactly one way”, over pure RAW without need for GM adjudication of when a scene changes, or what conditions qualify to allow a hide check. Or even pure scene-based logic, with no calls to real time (but strong “police always start a scene with their guns holstered” checks to let players beat the GM over the head with a (verbal) clue-by-four as needed, and “Spell only ends of it fails all definitions of scene and” logic over “spell ends when it fails a single definition of scene ends” logic).

EDIT: I started this reply about 12 hours before posting it (work is the bane of the posting man); Gbaji said a lot of what I tried to say much better than I did. So, kudos Gbaji!

[GloatingSwine]

Stealth: contrary to your “what good does it do to hide right before the door is opened”, if I were to apply my own sense of realism, I would argue that one can only hide if they’re hidden before the door is opened.

From my understanding of the rules, hiding requires at least the potential of an observer in the place where you are hiding. Hiding requires you to stay where you are hiding and is a state where the waveform doesn't collapse until someone makes an Awareness or Search check against it.

So hiding before the door is opened is incoherent *unless* you are hiding specifically in a place where they would be able to see you if the door was open.

If the player wanted to enter the room unobserved whilst the rest of the party was being a distraction I would call for Sneak not Hide, starting with the assumption that the people in the room started out unaware of them. If they wanted to stay on the far side of the door out of sight they would remain unnoticed without rolling for it until they did something which caused them to be percieved.

All reasonable points. But I guess the question I have been trying to get answered is "why does Bob want to do this?". There must be some reason why the existing initiative system isn't working for him. I can only speculate as to what that may be (although some of your comments about the hide/sneak rules, combined with the "hidden" bonus to initiative does seem to hint in a direction).

Sometimes in these threads you have to accept that the answer is "because Bob". Bob is a cheeser, he has spotted what looks like cheesy interaction in the rules and he wants it to work to make him win.



I still think that the answer here is to have a consistent approach which allows preparation within an encounter if it makes sense, and it will make sense if the party are aware of the enemies in the encounter and the enemies are not yet aware of them. This may involve defining certain actions as Quiet and others as Loud for the purposes of retaining that advantage, and possibly a skill based way for a character to take Loud actions anyway.

This would need to be in some kind of action economy and declared action order, and if anyone does anything Loud or fumbles something then you roll initiative but anyone who has spent their prep action can't act in the first turn of initiative.

[gbaji]

From my understanding of the rules, hiding requires at least the potential of an observer in the place where you are hiding. Hiding requires you to stay where you are hiding and is a state where the waveform doesn't collapse until someone makes an Awareness or Search check against it.

Except that, from the point of view of the character attempting the hide skill, there is *always* the potential of an observer. Which leaves us with allowing people to use their hide skill to make themselves "as hidden as possible given the terrain/shadows/whatever" (which I happen to think is perfectly reasonable). The alternative is basically placing a spot skill requirement on the hide skill. You must first have spotted the enemy so you can hide against them. I think that's a bit absurd (and really hard to manage practially in a game).

I think this depends on whether you view the hide skill as proactive or reactive. I think of it as proactive ("I'm going to find something nearby to hide beyind"). In the proactive model, the character simply rolls their hide (and maybe the GM makes note of their success level, game system dependent). When someone is trying to spot them later, that character then makes their spot, with the GM appying bonuses or minuses depending on terrain and whether (and how well) someone is hidden. This system naturally provides benefits if the hiding person knows where the spotting people are (can take better advantage of terrain), but also allows for the basic fact that if I'm making a point of standing still in a shadowed area of a room, I'm going to be harder to see, even if I have no clue who else may be there, or where they are, or anything else.

So hiding before the door is opened is incoherent *unless* you are hiding specifically in a place where they would be able to see you if the door was open.

Do you think that's a good game mechanic? Cause I don't. It requies the absolutely absurd requirement that the location I'm hiding in must be visible to someone for me to actually be hidden from them. That's kinda backwards from what one would normally assume.

Worse, it plays a strange game with action economy in the game. If we're out in a field, with large rocks, trees, bushes, whatever, and there are opponents "over there", since the opponents are able to see the field, and the rocks/trees/bushes, I can take an action to "hide" right now. I then can continue to "hide" (and then even "sneak" up on them) as I wish. But! If there is a partition blocking the enemies view of the rocks/bushes/trees, then I can't take that action. I must wait until the partition is removed before doing so. That is... ridiclous.

It also creates the exact "open a door and attack" problem. if the thing that is blocking the opponents view is *also* the thing that, upon being removed/opened will trigger the start of a combat, I can't ever hide ahead of that obstacle being removed. Which means thati if I am a sneaky type, and want to be able to hide in th shadows, and sneak up on my enemies, I may never hide ahead of time in this situation. I must wait until combat starts (the door is opened, partition dropped, whatever), and then use my first round action to try to hide. Then, maybe in the next round, I may be able to sneak (into the room, or across the field), up to an opopnent. Then, now three rounds into the battle, I maybe can attack.

Worse. If I'm understanding the game system we're talking about correctly, there seems to be an initiative bonus if you are hidden, but not if you are "trying to hide". Also, from what Talakeal has said, it seems like his initiative system is really based on "how aggressive you are in a fight", so someone "trying to hide" might not be seen as getting any sort of bonus. And, also given the (frankly strange) view on hiding in general in that game, I'm reasonably certain Talakeal is also not ruling favorably in terms of "readied action" either. I'm speculating on actual play rulings, but just based on the bits I've read, I would not be surprised if "ready to run into the room and attack" gets a high bonus to initiative (that -6 to +6 range in the rules), while "waiting for the door to open so I can hide" may not. Afterall, how can you hide from opponents in the room if you don't know where they are, or where they are looking, or where the hiding spots are.

But wait! It gets worse. If you "win" initiative, you basically get two actions in a round instead of just one. So if he fails (because he's just hanging out in the dooway trying to hide, while his fellow party members are charging into the breach or something), not only does he have to take an extra action to do the "hide, sneak, backstab" combo, but he gets one fewer actions in the first round.

If even half of those rules and interpreations of rules are in effect here, I can totally see why Bob might be a bit disappointed in things. He's making the reasonable assumption that "Of course I can hide from people when I'm on the otther side of the door", And expects that his first action should be "sneak into the room, keeping to shadows, while my companions are distracting them charging into the room". At the very least, he's expecting that he should be able to do this and get himself into position (if at all possible based on how the NPCs are arranged) in the first round, and then do a backstab on round two. And yeah, under ideal conditions he might expect to be able to take that first "bonus" action from winning initiative to sneak into the room in the confusion, an take his "normal" action at the end of the round to backstab.

If the player wanted to enter the room unobserved whilst the rest of the party was being a distraction I would call for Sneak not Hide, starting with the assumption that the people in the room started out unaware of them. If they wanted to stay on the far side of the door out of sight they would remain unnoticed without rolling for it until they did something which caused them to be percieved.

Yeah. That's how I would rule it as well. Again though, if Talakeal is actually rulling that he has to take "hide" as his first turn action, then that's a heck of a negative to this style of attack.

Sometimes in these threads you have to accept that the answer is "because Bob". Bob is a cheeser, he has spotted what looks like cheesy interaction in the rules and he wants it to work to make him win.

Even the most cheesy of cheese can still be correct that something isn't fair/balanced/whatever. This isn't about Bob. I'm trying to make an objective assessment of the actual rules and how those actual rules play out in an actual game.

My understanding is that this is a home brewed game. Which suggests that this is at least to some degree about playtesting the game rules. So "the rules say X, so that's the way it is" is never the right answer.

I still think that the answer here is to have a consistent approach which allows preparation within an encounter if it makes sense, and it will make sense if the party are aware of the enemies in the encounter and the enemies are not yet aware of them. This may involve defining certain actions as Quiet and others as Loud for the purposes of retaining that advantage, and possibly a skill based way for a character to take Loud actions anyway.

Agree on the need for consistency. It's why I talked earlier about having concepts of who is aware of whom, and what they can do when in that situation.

This would need to be in some kind of action economy and declared action order, and if anyone does anything Loud or fumbles something then you roll initiative but anyone who has spent their prep action can't act in the first turn of initiative.

That's one way to do it. Honestly, I'd just allow the PCs (or whichever side has the awareness advantage) to spend rounds prepping. The longer they do this, within a range where the NPCs could detect them, the more perception rolls I give the NPCs. What happens when they are detected is based on the NPCs. I would lean away from "initiative is rolled once they detect you". IMO, initiative is rolled the moment two parties are interacting with eachother and we need to know what order their actions occur. If the NPCs hear the party prepping outside the door, we don't roll innitiative (or make folks auto lose cause they already prepped that round). We just decide what the NPCs are doing in response. Maybe they run away. Maybe they open the door and attack (and the moment the door is opened is when initiative is rolled, with the instigating/opening side having an advantage). Maybe they start prepping things themselves.

At some point *someone* will take an action that initiates direct interaction (opening the door in this case). That's when initiative is rolled. Not sooner. Whatever prep has been completed by that point is completed. Everyone rolls initiative and acts. Now if they want to continue casting up prep spells for another round or three, they are free to do that, following the initiative rules, and during combat. It's their choice. I'm just not sure where the "you prepped this round, but the door opened and we rolled initiative, so you don't get to act, comes from".

Prior to combat starting, we can count rounds (or whatever time) for purposes of seeing how much prep you do, and whether NPCs detect you, but that's normal "out of combat" time passing. IMO, initiative is always rolled at the beginning of a new round/combat. Your suggestion would assume that someohow we're getting halway through a round, some people have already acted and *now* we're rolling initiative? That seems like it's going to create more problems than it solves.

[GloatingSwine]

Except that, from the point of view of the character attempting the hide skill, there is *always* the potential of an observer. Which leaves us with allowing people to use their hide skill to make themselves "as hidden as possible given the terrain/shadows/whatever" (which I happen to think is perfectly reasonable). The alternative is basically placing a spot skill requirement on the hide skill. You must first have spotted the enemy so you can hide against them. I think that's a bit absurd (and really hard to manage practially in a game).

I think this depends on whether you view the hide skill as proactive or reactive. I think of it as proactive ("I'm going to find something nearby to hide beyind"). In the proactive model, the character simply rolls their hide (and maybe the GM makes note of their success level, game system dependent). When someone is trying to spot them later, that character then makes their spot, with the GM appying bonuses or minuses depending on terrain and whether (and how well) someone is hidden. This system naturally provides benefits if the hiding person knows where the spotting people are (can take better advantage of terrain), but also allows for the basic fact that if I'm making a point of standing still in a shadowed area of a room, I'm going to be harder to see, even if I have no clue who else may be there, or where they are, or anything else.

"I'm going to find something to hide behind" implies a "behind" relative to a predicted observer. If you can't predict where the observer is going to be there is no such thing as "behind" something because when they arrive you might actually be in front of it relative to them.

Attempting to hide requires at least that. It requires at least a declared direction or reference point to be hiding from.

Do you think that's a good game mechanic? Cause I don't. It requies the absolutely absurd requirement that the location I'm hiding in must be visible to someone for me to actually be hidden from them. That's kinda backwards from what one would normally assume.

No, it requires the location you are hiding in to potentially become visible.

If the location can never become visible then you are unobserved whether you hide or not.

Worse, it plays a strange game with action economy in the game. If we're out in a field, with large rocks, trees, bushes, whatever, and there are opponents "over there", since the opponents are able to see the field, and the rocks/trees/bushes, I can take an action to "hide" right now. I then can continue to "hide" (and then even "sneak" up on them) as I wish. But! If there is a partition blocking the enemies view of the rocks/bushes/trees, then I can't take that action. I must wait until the partition is removed before doing so. That is... ridiclous.

If their view is blocked and cannot be unblocked your "hide" action is incoherent. From their point of view you would still be hidden if you were standing in the open flashing neon yellow. You don't need to do anything to hide.

It also creates the exact "open a door and attack" problem. if the thing that is blocking the opponents view is *also* the thing that, upon being removed/opened will trigger the start of a combat, I can't ever hide ahead of that obstacle being removed. Which means thati if I am a sneaky type, and want to be able to hide in th shadows, and sneak up on my enemies, I may never hide ahead of time in this situation. I must wait until combat starts (the door is opened, partition dropped, whatever), and then use my first round action to try to hide. Then, maybe in the next round, I may be able to sneak (into the room, or across the field), up to an opopnent. Then, now three rounds into the battle, I maybe can attack.

And that's why I put in the qualifier that the only place Hide is a coherent action is a place which can become observable through a future change in the environment (like opening a door).

If you want to be in a location which will be visible when the door is opened (knowing where those locations are doesn't require anything other than a general awareness of what can be seen through a door) but do not want to be automatically detected, you Hide. If you are in a location which will not be visible when the door is opened you will not be detected anyway unless you take an action which changes that. If you want to take such an action but still remain undetected you need to Sneak. You do not need to Hide before you Sneak because you were already hidden.

Mechanically I would represent that as any character who is in full concealment at the start of a combat is counted as hidden without a Hide check until they leave it or perform an action without a Sneak check.

Edit: The underpinning of this is that if the character cannot physically be visually observed, the outcomes of success and even critical failure on a Hide action are the same.

[Talakeal]

Ah, now the the wording you used makes more sense. I also understand better why your players are trying to autowin initiative. Winning initiative is a major bonus in this game, with no tradeoff from what I can tell. You kinda did bring that on yourself by having a system where failing initiative can have major consequences. Knowing what I do about your group from previous posts, obviously they will try to prevent those negative consequences by any means necessary.

Yeah, I try to ensure that roll actually matter. Not sure why winning initiative could / should ever have a tradeoff.

I admit I don't quite understand all the modifiers; the general description makes it sound like initiative is something players roll once at the start of combat (surprise can only happen at that time, after all). However, many of the modifiers sound like something that would apply from turn to turn, suggesting that initiative is rerolled every turn. I had to think about how this might even work; let me know if I am close here:

Initiative is rolled once at the start of combat to determine who acts in the first turn, which is sort of like the D&D surprise round.

Initiative is rolled again if there is a conflict about when actions would be resolved; for example if someone delays in order to interrupt someone else, or if there is a disagreement about action order between to characters on the same team.

It is not rolled every turn.

After the "surprise round" all enemies take their turns in any order the GM wants, and then all PC take their turns in any order the players want, and this repeats until the conflict is ended.

Players roll initiative at the start of combat. This determines base initiative order. At the start of every turn, everyone announces what they want to do this turn (my guess is, you're doing this the way WoD does, with lowest initiative announcing first). Then the above modifiers apply and change the base initiative order to the initiative order for this turn.

No, you don't need to announce actions in advance. That's way more work than its worth imo.

If this is correct, the one thing I can't quite parse is the readied action. The way I usually understand readied actions is, when your turn comes around you decide not to act right away but hold your action to react to someone who has yet to go. But that means it shouldn't apply either a bonus or penalty, because you don't know whether your readied action will actually get triggered until long after initiative has been determined. So there has to be something I'm not aware of here.

Ready is something you can declare at any time, in or out of combat, and it doesn't take an action. It provides a modifier (from -6 to +6) to your initiative score based on how close your actions follow your stated intent. For example, if I say "I am readying to shoot the first person who comes through the door" then you will get a +6 to do that. If then someone crashes through the window behind you and you cast a shield spell to protect yourself, you would get a -6 to initiative because it was nothing like the stated action. There are guidelines for how that is determined (basically who, what, and when) but its a bit subjective.

Since monsters don't roll, do they have a fixed initative score they get slotted at?

The difficulty to act in the first turn is determined by the monster's passive initiative score.

The monsters then take their turns once all players have gone.

Yeah. I got the same impression. I get now why Bob complained that he "lost a turn", since apparently, if you win initiative in this system, you get to go twice? Or are we both misreading that?

Depends on how you are looking at it.

You only literally get an extra turn if you pass initiative by more than 20, which is extremely unlikely unless you have a quickdraw build and stack all the modifiers you can.

But, on the other hand, if it takes your party three turns to kill the monster, and the monster goes first then the monster will get three turns rather than two, so I guess the monster does effectively lose a turn if the party goes first.

Ok. That's not at all what you said in your post, but whatever. I'll respond to this.

I apologize for my miscommunication. I am not sure what you thought I said, and going back and rereading previous posts I am not quite sure what I said differently, although as I said above there are a lot of non-specific pronouns (it, that, this) which could cause confusion if read as referring to something else.

All reasonable points. But I guess the question I have been trying to get answered is "why does Bob want to do this?". There must be some reason why the existing initiative system isn't working for him. I can only speculate as to what that may be (although some of your comments about the hide/sneak rules, combined with the "hidden" bonus to initiative does seem to hint in a direction).

I can't speak for Bob, and he get's really angry and sulky if I actually try and talk to him about it, but if I could hazard a guess:

Bob usually plays wizards, and dumps his physical stats as they don't directly help him with magic. He gets really angry and considers it "cheating" or "picking on him" to exploit these weaknesses, for example for an enemy to grapple him or hit him with a poisoned weapon.

Dexterity is another dump stat for him, and initiative is really the only time he is ever *forced* to make an initiative based test. Thus he considers having to roll initiative to be picking on him, and thus looks for ways to bpass it entirely.

*lot's of stuff about defending and initiaitve*

I think we are talking past one another.

From a "gamist" perspective, my answer is simple:

Total defense is a trade-off, you lose the option to actively do something on your turn in exchange for defense. If it is allowed outside of the turn order, there is no trade-off, just a weird no brainer. This is not how I want my game to work. Someone pointed out on the 3.5 forum that in D&D you are considered flat-footed until you have acted, so unless you have uncanny dodge the whole conversation is moot.

From a narrative / simulationist perspective, simply being on the lookout for danger and having your shield readied is not total defense, that's just not being flat-footed. To me, it is really weird that the guy who is hiding in the back behind the shield will make it into the room and attack first before the guy who is right at the door with weapons drawn champing at the bit to get into the thick of things.

Also, I am stating that total defense as an action doesn't make sense in a vacuum, you need to be aware of the sort of threat. For example, raising your shield in a phalanx formation works fine against a volley of arrows, but if a dungeon door is opened and say, a tide of ochre jelly pours out and melts your feet, or a horde of kobolds rush out and stab your ankles, it will actively harm you ability to defend yourself.

Personally, I prefer games where the rules and the narrative reinforce one another, and I try and have initiative represent people out-drawing one another while acting at the same time. The scenario you are describing seems like an OoTS style fusion where the narrative where everyone politely stands still while waiting for everyone else to take their turns one at a time.

You say that this would require a house rule, but what are the current rules then? So, they kick open the door first and then "combat begins"? Then what? Everyone declares an action and we roll initiative? Or we roll initiative and folks take actions when their turn comes (question I asked above)? It would seem to me that if the bonuses for "readied actions" and "unexpected combat" (plus dex/perception) were sufficient to most often result in them winning initiative in a situation like this, then I'd assume Bob wouldn't be making such a stink about this. So something is not working. Maybe figure out what it is and address it.

Generally, I describe the scene first, we RP dialogue and exploration, and then when one side wishes to initiate hostilities against the other side, I tell them where they are allowed to place their models and what modifiers to initiative are appropriate based on the narrative.

In a dungeon crawl, if there are enemies in the room who a: can hear the PCs coming, b: are not interested in talking and c: not themselves hidden in preperation for an ambush, then I generally default to allowing players to place their models within a number of paces of the doorway equal to their perception score and allow a straight initiative, without counting opening the door as an action for anyone.

More generally, in this thread, you seem to be switching back and forth between Simulationist and Gamist logic, and choosing whichever is worst for your players. Or, put another way, it looks like players’ plans will fail if either the rules or common sense take issue with their actions.

I don't feel like I do this as a GM. I generally go with the rules as written, unless there is some game-breaking exploit or the rules as written would just be tedious to play out, in which case I will hand-wave it. I can't recall the last time a player took a legal action and I told them no because it didn't make sense from a narrative perspective (although I might if the players find a game-breaking loophole or exploit the wording of the rules to avoid the intent).

Now, as a developer, I try to find a balance between the three Fs (feasible, fast, and fair) and sometimes have to make concessions to one of these pillars in order to prop up the others, in the name of the nebulous fourth F (fun).

I have had a lot of people (mostly Bob) tell me that my rules are weighted against the players, but I really have a hard time figuring out how this is as most rules are wholly transparent between PCs and NPCs and those that aren't tend to be objective benefits in the PCs favor (like getting to reroll dice each session with destiny).

As always, specific examples would be welcome!

At will abilities: you say it doesn’t make sense at the Narrative level. I disagree. In the D&D cartoon, when Venger used his at will “warlock Eldridge blast” to light the way when walking down a dark corridor? That wasn’t breaking the world building, that was cool! (I think it’s why one of my players went warlock, in fact.) I see no reason not to just let them, with the following caveats: 1) Venger’s arm should have gotten tired from being held out so long… and that should matter in the game as much as the PCs bathroom breaks (ie, presumably, not at all); 2) just as Venger was limited to half speed while lighting his own way, so, too, must any associated costs of continuously casting the spell (noise, visuals, components, magic residue, arm waving, Venger holding his arm out, action cost, whatever) be paid.

It's generally not an issue in the short term, but as you said, his arm will eventually get tired, and it precludes him from doing a lot of other abilities.

Players tend to ignore costs like mental, physical, or spiritual exhaustion as they often don't have mechanical effects.

Stealth: contrary to your “what good does it do to hide right before the door is opened”, if I were to apply my own sense of realism, I would argue that one can only hide if they’re hidden before the door is opened. And I would be wrong. Because I’ve seen people with the skills to remove themselves from their opponents’ perception in the middle of combat. I don’t really understand it, but I do acknowledge that it’s a thing. Sigh. And it sounds like it’s also counted for in your rules. So, ultimately, I would ignore what I personally understand about stealth, and just allow stealth “whenever”/“always”… with the following caveats: 1) “Move Silently” can be attempted approximately always, including “all day all the time”; 2) “Hide” functions / can be successfully attempted whenever there is an obstacle / distraction (so “in shadows”, “behind cover”, “in combat”, “when Aphrodite is visible”, “when someone else takes the ‘distract’ action”, etc, all qualify); 3) (if I understand your system) “Hidden” is not a state - “attempting to hide” and “hidden from X” are states -> when encountering / coming within LoS of foes (or anyone, really) they roll perception (or whatever) to see if they spot the “attempting to hide” character, producing the set of “hidden from X” states; 4) hiding from infravision, tremor sense, scent, etc, is presumed to auto-fail by those without such senses of their own (or, in the case of scent, unless explicit precautions are taken), unless otherwise noted; 5) beings who perceive a character attempting to hide will respond accordingly (this matters very little in a dungeon setting, where presumably the monsters and the party are already trying to kill one another as the default, and “Guy who hides” is less of a target than “Guy who looks like a Wizard” (and may even occasionally be intentionally ignored as a potential noncom (at least unless they are visibly armed / until they make their first attack))); 6) maintaining any active stealth stance (so not “hiding in a box”) carries roughly the same costs as maintaining any other stance (presumably, there are no rules for this, so the answer is “none” at the moment).

Also, as your concept of hiding seems most like “Hide in Shadows”, I disagree that one must hide “from someone”. Or Hunger Games cake decorator didn’t exactly intentionally hide from his ally, he just made himself camouflaged and difficult to spot. Boo didn’t intentionally hide from most of the monsters (at first), she was just small and hard to spot.[/QUOTE]

One thing RPGs never really model well is "passive stealth".

Sometimes, usually because there are mitigating factors or you are focused on something else, it really is possible to not notice / recognize someone if they are right out in the open.

If someone is in the next room and not making a ton of noise, this is probably normal. If, on the other hand, they walk up to you and call your name, it's pretty rare. Both happen in real life, but I have no idea how one would model them in an RPG.

On the other hand, sometimes senses besides vision can also give things away. For example, D&D tends to assume invisibility makes someone unknowable and untargetable, but often times its easy to know where someone is without looking at them. If I hear / feel the door open, the chair next to me pull out, and someone sit in it, I know somebody is there without looking at them, invisibility doesn't factor into it.

On the other hand, actively hiding is an action. If someone knows where you are, or you want to be hidden from all potential observers, then you need to take an action to hide. Normally this involves moving into cover / concealment / camouflage and then staying still. This is a lot easier if you know who or what you are hiding from, as you only need to have cover / concealment / camouflage relative to them.

If you are outside of the room, the enemy doesn't know where you are, and won't potentially see you. There is no reason to hide. In this case, what you want to do is *sneak*. Sneaking is not an action, but sneaking into the room is *really* tough when you want to charge in and stab somebody in the face immediately after the door is kicked in and everyone is looking right at the doorway you are currently rushing through weapons drawn.

Bob thinks that sneaking into the room should be easier because, at some point in the day before entering the room or initiating combat, he spent six seconds crouching motionless in the shadows, and thus has the *hidden condition* from all potential enemies until spotted. To me, this is nonsense.

Pre-combat actions: let’s say I know Combat is about to start. I can absolutely grab my Machine Gun, and sit inside the tank, waiting for Bob to open the door before I pop my gun out and start shooting. What does sitting inside the tank give me? +infinite AC (attacks against me auto-fail) and infinite SR (spells have no line of sight and (presumably therefore) auto-fall). If I roll High (“win initiative” - for the record, I’m on your side on this turn of phrase making perfect sense in context, Talakeal) (EDIT: I just read your initiative rules - I agreed with you before reading them, and agree even more with your wording now, I guess), I pop out (or, at least, my gun pops out) before the opponents get to go, and they can attack me with their first action; if I roll low and “lose initiative”, they have to wait until their second volley before I become a valid target. Any explanation that doesn’t involve understanding this, that makes this sound more complex than what I just said, is suboptimal, and should be discarded, ignored, or upgraded.

Sounds right.

Talking Strategy: I would explicitly tell your players that, to facilitate cooperation and to reduce misunderstandings, that I'm willing to allow (roughly unlimited) OOC conversations about tactics, including asking clarifying questions of the GM. The PCs are welcome to have any IC conversations they would like to have about tactics, and the players are welcome to tell me that they want all such conversations to be IC, if that's what they want. I would explain that I am explicitly willing to not count such conversations against stealth etc, if they so desire.

I have done this.

Bob hates this, because he doesn't like conversation (either in or out of character) and wants to remove it from the game.

He also says it's unfair that the other players get to communicate without being overheard, but that he cannot cast spells / use bardic abilities without being heard.

Now, going back to the idea of multiple points of failure: it sounds (and correct me if I’m wrong) like you not only have a “raw and common sense can both cause a plan to fail / an action must pass both”...

I suppose so, but it's very rare that something actually occurs which cannot be explained by realism. (Forget common sense, I hate that term).

More often, a player doesn't like the rules, and asks me to change / ignore them because they feel the rules aren't realistic, I say the rules are fine in my opinion, and then they get mad that I my idea of realism trumps theirs.

...but also a “things last the lower of physical time and narrative time” double fail state. That is, as Spell can end when the GM calls “scene”, *and* it can end mid-scene if the physical duration expires. If so, I’d say that also doesn’t sound good for your group, and you should do away with one of the other.

Not really, no.

Spells have narrative descriptions, but those only apply when you aren't in scene. For example, a standard enchantment lasts a matter of minutes, no more than an hour, so it won't say, protect the group over-night while they sleep or all day long while traveling. But if you are actually in scene and RPing out a dialogue, exploring a room, or fighting a combat, tit won't suddenly expire because the scene is dragging on too long like it would in D&D.

Setting aside Bizarro World for a moment, would I want to run a system with “spells have multiple duration considerations”, “stealth works everywhere, including in the middle of combat even if you’ve already been spotted, except when walking through a doorway at the start of combat” levels of wonkiness? Well… no. And it’s not because of the complexity - I prefer rules- heavy systems. I don’t dislike complexity. It’s because I dislike needless complexity. I don’t see how the added complexity here really adds anything to the game over more simplified “you can hide, period” / “all durations are measured in the same / in exactly one way”, over pure RAW without need for GM adjudication of when a scene changes, or what conditions qualify to allow a hide check. Or even pure scene-based logic, with no calls to real time (but strong “police always start a scene with their guns holstered” checks to let players beat the GM over the head with a (verbal) clue-by-four as needed, and “Spell only ends of it fails all definitions of scene and” logic over “spell ends when it fails a single definition of scene ends” logic).

Just to clarify, the stealth rules have nothing to do with scene durations.

You can stay hidden all day long with a single roll if you want to lie motionless in the underbrush.


You might be thinking from this conversation that I am saying Bob's stealth is foiled by going through the doorway because its the start of a new scene, I am not. I am saying that he needs to sneak into the room unnoticed, and sneaking through an area that is being actively watched is done at a -20 penalty. And since Bob wants to rush through the door immediately after the fighter kicks it in without waiting for the rest of the party, he is almost certainly going to be watched as he is literally the center of attention.

From my understanding of the rules, hiding requires at least the potential of an observer in the place where you are hiding. Hiding requires you to stay where you are hiding and is a state where the waveform doesn't collapse until someone makes an Awareness or Search check against it.

So hiding before the door is opened is incoherent *unless* you are hiding specifically in a place where they would be able to see you if the door was open.

If the player wanted to enter the room unobserved whilst the rest of the party was being a distraction I would call for Sneak not Hide, starting with the assumption that the people in the room started out unaware of them. If they wanted to stay on the far side of the door out of sight they would remain unnoticed without rolling for it until they did something which caused them to be percieved.

This is correct as I see it.

Except that, from the point of view of the character attempting the hide skill, there is *always* the potential of an observer. Which leaves us with allowing people to use their hide skill to make themselves "as hidden as possible given the terrain/shadows/whatever" (which I happen to think is perfectly reasonable). The alternative is basically placing a spot skill requirement on the hide skill. You must first have spotted the enemy so you can hide against them. I think that's a bit absurd (and really hard to manage practially in a game).

I think this depends on whether you view the hide skill as proactive or reactive. I think of it as proactive ("I'm going to find something nearby to hide beyind"). In the proactive model, the character simply rolls their hide (and maybe the GM makes note of their success level, game system dependent). When someone is trying to spot them later, that character then makes their spot, with the GM appying bonuses or minuses depending on terrain and whether (and how well) someone is hidden. This system naturally provides benefits if the hiding person knows where the spotting people are (can take better advantage of terrain), but also allows for the basic fact that if I'm making a point of standing still in a shadowed area of a room, I'm going to be harder to see, even if I have no clue who else may be there, or where they are, or anything else.

This is also correct.

It is perfectly possible to lie quietly in the underbrush or crouch under a cloak, or to paint yourself in camouflage colors.

The problem is, hiding like this is an action, and once you start moving / talking / fighting you are going to have to make sneak tests to avoid giving away your position. Bob does not like either of those drawbacks.

It also creates the exact "open a door and attack" problem. if the thing that is blocking the opponents view is *also* the thing that, upon being removed/opened will trigger the start of a combat, I can't ever hide ahead of that obstacle being removed.

Yeah, hiding behind a door and then having the door opened would indeed spoil being hidden. Just like having the curtain you are behind or the box / closet you are inside opened. Although I would certainly give you an initiative bonus for surprise if you were waiting to ambush the person who did the opening!

The idea that you could remain hidden behind something that is no longer there is frankly absurd.

Which means that if I am a sneaky type, and want to be able to hide in the shadows, and sneak up on my enemies, I may never hide ahead of time in this situation. I must wait until combat starts (the door is opened, partition dropped, whatever), and then use my first round action to try to hide. Then, maybe in the next round, I may be able to sneak (into the room, or across the field), up to an opopnent. Then, now three rounds into the battle, I maybe can attack.

Well, no, you could already be hidden *on the battlefield* to ambush someone right away in combat. But that would involve either sneaking into the enemy's lair before the rest of your party or drawing the enemy out of their lair to your hiding spot.

If you are outside of the room, you are automatically hidden (assuming opaque walls) regardless of whether you spend an action to hide. You then need to *sneak* into the room. If you are going first, this might be very hard, if you delay until your party has engaged and distracted the enemies, it is probably very easy. You may then attack on the same turn.

The problem is Bob wants to rush into the room immediately upon the door being kicked open, meaning he will either need to take an action to actively hide or a -20 penalty to sneak for being watched.

Worse. If I'm understanding the game system we're talking about correctly, there seems to be an initiative bonus if you are hidden, but not if you are "trying to hide".

This is correct. I don't know why it really matters though.

Also, from what Talakeal has said, it seems like his initiative system is really based on "how aggressive you are in a fight", so someone "trying to hide" might not be seen as getting any sort of bonus. And, also given the (frankly strange) view on hiding in general in that game, I'm reasonably certain Talakeal is also not ruling favorably in terms of "readied action" either. I'm speculating on actual play rulings, but just based on the bits I've read, I would not be surprised if "ready to run into the room and attack" gets a high bonus to initiative (that -6 to +6 range in the rules), while "waiting for the door to open so I can hide" may not. Afterall, how can you hide from opponents in the room if you don't know where they are, or where they are looking, or where the hiding spots are.

"Aggressive" doesn't really factor into it.

Readied actions give you a bonus to initiative based on how closely they match your statement; a guy who is champing at the bit to be the first to charge into the room will get a bonus for being "agressive", but the guy who has readied an action to hide at the first sign of trouble with get the same bonus for being "timid".

But yeah, it might be tough to ready an action to move into unknown territory and hide based on the circumstances, although not significantly harder than attacking. The big issue would be lack of things to hide behind near the doorway.

But wait! It gets worse. If you "win" initiative, you basically get two actions in a round instead of just one. So if he fails (because he's just hanging out in the dooway trying to hide, while his fellow party members are charging into the breach or something), not only does he have to take an extra action to do the "hide, sneak, backstab" combo, but he gets one fewer actions in the first round.

Only if you win by 20 or more.

But wait, why are you complaining about this? Didn't you say yesterday that it was insane that sneaking doesn't grant two turns in a row?

Even the most cheesy of cheese can still be correct that something isn't fair/balanced/whatever. This isn't about Bob. I'm trying to make an objective assessment of the actual rules and how those actual rules play out in an actual game.

My understanding is that this is a home brewed game. Which suggests that this is at least to some degree about playtesting the game rules. So "the rules say X, so that's the way it is" is never the right answer.

Indeed. Underneath all the whine and cheese, Bob does have a good head for mechanics and I put (probably far too much) stock in his feedback. He was a professional game tester for Sony for a while.

That's one way to do it. Honestly, I'd just allow the PCs (or whichever side has the awareness advantage) to spend rounds prepping. The longer they do this, within a range where the NPCs could detect them, the more perception rolls I give the NPCs. What happens when they are detected is based on the NPCs. I would lean away from "initiative is rolled once they detect you". IMO, initiative is rolled the moment two parties are interacting with eachother and we need to know what order their actions occur. If the NPCs hear the party prepping outside the door, we don't roll innitiative (or make folks auto lose cause they already prepped that round). We just decide what the NPCs are doing in response. Maybe they run away. Maybe they open the door and attack (and the moment the door is opened is when initiative is rolled, with the instigating/opening side having an advantage). Maybe they start prepping things themselves.

At some point *someone* will take an action that initiates direct interaction (opening the door in this case). That's when initiative is rolled. Not sooner. Whatever prep has been completed by that point is completed. Everyone rolls initiative and acts. Now if they want to continue casting up prep spells for another round or three, they are free to do that, following the initiative rules, and during combat. It's their choice. I'm just not sure where the "you prepped this round, but the door opened and we rolled initiative, so you don't get to act, comes from".

Prior to combat starting, we can count rounds (or whatever time) for purposes of seeing how much prep you do, and whether NPCs detect you, but that's normal "out of combat" time passing. IMO, initiative is always rolled at the beginning of a new round/combat. Your suggestion would assume that someohow we're getting halway through a round, some people have already acted and *now* we're rolling initiative? That seems like it's going to create more problems than it solves.

This is correct.

Although again, most of the "prep" involves things that only last a single round and are incoherent without specific knowledge of the enemy such as defend, coordinate, or hide so there isn't a whole lot of a point.

"I'm going to find something to hide behind" implies a "behind" relative to a predicted observer. If you can't predict where the observer is going to be there is no such thing as "behind" something because when they arrive you might actually be in front of it relative to them.

Attempting to hide requires at least that. It requires at least a declared direction or reference point to be hiding from.



No, it requires the location you are hiding in to potentially become visible.

If the location can never become visible then you are unobserved whether you hide or not.



If their view is blocked and cannot be unblocked your "hide" action is incoherent. From their point of view you would still be hidden if you were standing in the open flashing neon yellow. You don't need to do anything to hide.



And that's why I put in the qualifier that the only place Hide is a coherent action is a place which can become observable through a future change in the environment (like opening a door).

If you want to be in a location which will be visible when the door is opened (knowing where those locations are doesn't require anything other than a general awareness of what can be seen through a door) but do not want to be automatically detected, you Hide. If you are in a location which will not be visible when the door is opened you will not be detected anyway unless you take an action which changes that. If you want to take such an action but still remain undetected you need to Sneak. You do not need to Hide before you Sneak because you were already hidden.

Mechanically I would represent that as any character who is in full concealment at the start of a combat is counted as hidden without a Hide check until they leave it or perform an action without a Sneak check.

Edit: The underpinning of this is that if the character cannot physically be visually observed, the outcomes of success and even critical failure on a Hide action are the same.

This is all more or less correct.

[Quertus]

From my understanding of the rules, hiding requires at least the potential of an observer in the place where you are hiding. Hiding requires you to stay where you are hiding and is a state where the waveform doesn't collapse until someone makes an Awareness or Search check against it.

So hiding before the door is opened is incoherent *unless* you are hiding specifically in a place where they would be able to see you if the door was open.

Do you think that's a good game mechanic? Cause I don't. It requies the absolutely absurd requirement that the location I'm hiding in must be visible to someone for me to actually be hidden from them. That's kinda backwards from what one would normally assume.

Agreed that it's a bad rule.

"I'm going to find something to hide behind" implies a "behind" relative to a predicted observer. If you can't predict where the observer is going to be there is no such thing as "behind" something because when they arrive you might actually be in front of it relative to them.

Attempting to hide requires at least that. It requires at least a declared direction or reference point to be hiding from.

No, that's a bad mechanic, too. "I'm going to hide in these shadows.", "I'm going to hide in this box.", "I'm going to hide by painting myself to match the background.", or the ever-popular movie example of "I'm going to hide in plain sight on the ceiling (hope no one looks up).".

Far better to just have stealth skills work with 0 prerequisites than to have bad prerequisites.

That said, with each observer getting a perception check against them, it feels like you'll never sneak past a group of guards undetected, but will always have someone you can sneak attack in combat. Which feels really weird to me.

[MoiMagnus]

No, that's a bad mechanic, too. "I'm going to hide in these shadows.", "I'm going to hide in this box.", "I'm going to hide by painting myself to match the background.", or the ever-popular movie example of "I'm going to hide in plain sight on the ceiling (hope no one looks up).".

Far better to just have stealth skills work with 0 prerequisites than to have bad prerequisites.

That said, with each observer getting a perception check against them, it feels like you'll never sneak past a group of guards undetected, but will always have someone you can sneak attack in combat. Which feels really weird to me.

IMO, a better solution is to simply as "how" the person is hiding, and then apply advantages or automatic success to perception checks (including "passive perception" if that concept exists in your game) whenever someone comes "from the wrong angle".

In particular, when a combat start, the hide roll should be compared to the perception of the enemies to see if they immediately see you or not.

Then, there is a small issue with hiding being a continuous action, so you need to determine how often do you need to reroll the hiding (each time you change of hiding spot?). Plus the question of whether the hiding roll is public or made by the GM secretly.

[Talakeal]

No, that's a bad mechanic, too. "I'm going to hide in these shadows.", "I'm going to hide in this box.", "I'm going to hide by painting myself to match the background.", or the ever-popular movie example of "I'm going to hide in plain sight on the ceiling (hope no one looks up).".

Those examples are all fine though, because they say where you are hiding and would take an action (or at the very least lack of an action) to pull off. And the big issue is that once the person leaves their hiding place, why are they still hidden?

Far better to just have stealth skills work with 0 prerequisites than to have bad prerequisites.

Personally I would rather just remove stealth from the game entirely. Neither is a great option, but simply allowing anyone to stealth at any time with no reason and no trade-off like Bob wants is a nightmare to actually keep track of at the table because there is no reason for every character to attempt stealth every turn.

That said, with each observer getting a perception check against them, it feels like you'll never sneak past a group of guards undetected, but will always have someone you can sneak attack in combat. Which feels really weird to me.

Sneaking past the guards is sneak, not hide, and they do not get their own rolls.

Typically, a good roll on hide will foil any number of mooks who come looking, as they will need to roll beyond a natural 20, its only the real expert trackers you have to worry about.

IMO, a better solution is to simply as "how" the person is hiding, and then apply advantages or automatic success to perception checks (including "passive perception" if that concept exists in your game) whenever someone comes "from the wrong angle".

Agreed. That is already how it works, save the automatic failure.

Passive perfection does not exist, its kind of a silly rule both narratively and mechanically imo.

In particular, when a combat start, the hide roll should be compared to the perception of the enemies to see if they immediately see you or not.

Personally I don't know why you would ever roll at the start of combat, that seems like the worst time to establish awareness.

Then, there is a small issue with hiding being a continuous action, so you need to determine how often do you need to reroll the hiding (each time you change of hiding spot?). Plus the question of whether the hiding roll is public or made by the GM secretly.

The way I do it, which people object to, is rolling hide each time you use the hide ability; either to find a hiding place against potential observers or to break awareness from someone who has already spotted you. This sets the DC to spot you, which is rolled once when someone comes into the pressence of a hiding character and again if they actively search.

Sneak is rolled each time you want to move, attack, or do something else which could draw attention to yourself (regardless of whether or not you previously used the hide action) and is rolled against a DC set by the potential observer's alertness.

[Quertus]

IMO, a better solution is to simply as "how" the person is hiding, and then apply advantages or automatic success to perception checks (including "passive perception" if that concept exists in your game) whenever someone comes "from the wrong angle".

In particular, when a combat start, the hide roll should be compared to the perception of the enemies to see if they immediately see you or not.

Then, there is a small issue with hiding being a continuous action, so you need to determine how often do you need to reroll the hiding (each time you change of hiding spot?). Plus the question of whether the hiding roll is public or made by the GM secretly.

"Coming from the wrong angle" sounds like coming at this problem from the wrong angle, which I'm guessing is why you put that in quotes.

Yeah, if I'm hiding in the shadows, then angle doesn't matter. People casually walking by seem to auto-fail IME; someone with a torch gets a small bonus, someone intentionally shining said torch into the shadows gets a big bonus, someone with a spotlight or using infravision auto-succeeds.

When my approach to stealth is that I'm camouflaged/painted to look like the rock walls of the dungeon, I really can't think of much (besides cheating with things like infravision, again) that would give a bonus to perception against this form of hiding.

If I'm a ninja, preparing to stab you in the unprotected vitals by throwing a smoke bomb to make you momentarily lose sight of me as I walk in the door? I have 0 concept how that even works, let alone how one would defend against it.

But my point is, I wouldn't even bother with rules this finicky and high-fidelity at a normal table, so I certainly wouldn't use anything like this in Bizarro World with Talakeal's explosive group. I'd just use Hide, opposed by Perception, done. The added fidelity just isn't worth anything, afaict.

From a "gamist" perspective, my answer is simple:

Total defense is a trade-off, you lose the option to actively do something on your turn in exchange for defense. If it is allowed outside of the turn order, there is no trade-off, just a weird no brainer. This is not how I want my game to work.

In the case in point, you are giving up something - you're giving up other preparatory actions (like buff spells). It's giving those poor muggles relying on sinew and strategy something to do with the time they have before the fight starts.

Wait...

Except...

The difficulty to act in the first turn is determined by the monster's passive initiative score.

The monsters then take their turns once all players have gone.

If the players always go first, then "total defense the round before the door opens" is a rule that would always favor the monsters. So there might be a trade-off here between realism/sanity and "making Bob's accusation correct".

And...

Ready is something you can declare at any time, in or out of combat, and it doesn't take an action. It provides a modifier (from -6 to +6) to your initiative score based on how close your actions follow your stated intent. For example, if I say "I am readying to shoot the first person who comes through the door" then you will get a +6 to do that. If then someone crashes through the window behind you and you cast a shield spell to protect yourself, you would get a -6 to initiative because it was nothing like the stated action. There are guidelines for how that is determined (basically who, what, and when) but its a bit subjective.

If the monsters are readied to shoot anyone who comes through the door, do they get a +6 bonus to their initiative "DC"? Except...

***ERROR - QUOTE NOT FOUND ***

I think you said that people don't pre-declare their actions in your system... so how do you know if anyone is going through the door, to give the bonus (or penalty) to initiative? I'm really not sure if this rule is even actionable, let alone whether it favors PCs or monsters vs being neutral.

Someone pointed out on the 3.5 forum that in D&D you are considered flat-footed until you have acted, so unless you have uncanny dodge the whole conversation is moot.

Now isn't this interesting. This is a bit of mechanics that care when you roll initiative. If both sides are aware of one another, and roll initiative several rounds before they have LoS on one another, you get different results than if you wait for Bob (or not!Bob) to open the door. Other than everything, do your rules have any hangups that care about when initiative is rolled, that produce different results based on whether you are in our out of initiative?

From a narrative / simulationist perspective, simply being on the lookout for danger and having your shield readied is not total defense, that's just not being flat-footed. To me, it is really weird that the guy who is hiding in the back behind the shield will make it into the room and attack first before the guy who is right at the door with weapons drawn champing at the bit to get into the thick of things.

"Narrative" and "Simulationist" are not the same thing.

From a Simulationist perspective, "hiding in the tank" should give me some reduced awareness of when the battering ram finally breaches the door (I can't see the door from inside the tank, after all, and my Listen check is penalized by a closed door between me and the sounds), which, translated to mechanics, likely should result in a penalty to initiative. Yes, that's despite - or in addition to - the fact that my held action is completely germane, and itself should grant me a +6 bonus in your system. Or perhaps the Perception check is an additional prerequisite to getting to act in the 1st round (although I feel that is less in sync with the way your system is designed).

I don't care about the Narrativist perspective whatsoever. I don't care whether it makes a better story for me to pop out of the tank before or after the orcs of LessDoors (thus the battering ram) charge through the breach. And, not to put too fine a point on it, I don't think your rules should care, either.

Also, I am stating that total defense as an action doesn't make sense in a vacuum, you need to be aware of the sort of threat. For example, raising your shield in a phalanx formation works fine against a volley of arrows, but if a dungeon door is opened and say, a tide of ochre jelly pours out and melts your feet, or a horde of kobolds rush out and stab your ankles, it will actively harm you ability to defend yourself.

Strongly disagree. Bo9S had a better concept with "stances".

Spoiler: Unrelated story, spoiled for length

Show

So, IRL, I'm paranoid. A white-haired old lady doesn't walk up and talk to me without me being in "Combat Mode", being aware of her distance, where her hands are, her focus, her center of gravity, etc etc. That's... just the way I'm wired.

Well, one time, a group of such white-haired ladies walked up to me, had a friendly chat, etc. And I recognized that I'd seen them a couple times before. But like Anime Protagonist-kun, I completely failed to recognize that one of them was hitting on me, even after she sent her friends away / her friends left her alone with me (I forget the exact inciting incident here).

It wasn't until she got physical - reached out and put her hand on me - that I read the scene. But not before she read how tense my muscles were (being in combat mode and all), and concluded I was just being friendly while being terrified of her advances. Which wasn't true - I was just oblivious to them until that moment.

Before I could process my new contextualization of the conversation, she made some quick excuses and beat a hasty retreat.

The point of a stance, a mode is in how you are spending your time, how you are contextualizing the scenario. In "Total Defense", you are looking at everything, not to take action on it, not to "change the world", but to optimize your own survival. So if you see something, you are fully prepared to act in the most defensive way possible.

Look at it this way: If there are 2 characters, one of whom performed a full attack, and the other of whom went full defense, which will have a better AC when a Minotaur crashes through the far wall, and throws an axe at each? The one who is burying their swords in the Dragon, or the one who is actively trying to stay alive?

You have this really strange hang-up on only being able to comprehend actions taken in a specific context. I don't know where you get it from, but it is decidedly to your detriment as a game designer.

In a dungeon crawl, if there are enemies in the room who a: can hear the PCs coming, b: are not interested in talking and c: not themselves hidden in preperation for an ambush, then I generally default to allowing players to place their models within a number of paces of the doorway equal to their perception score and allow a straight initiative, without counting opening the door as an action for anyone.

Interesting Gamist logic. So, when the monsters are waiting by the door, you allow the party to start both in front and behind the monsters, flanking them? If so, I'd say that this rule favors the PCs.

I have had a lot of people (mostly Bob) tell me that my rules are weighted against the players, but I really have a hard time figuring out how this is as most rules are wholly transparent between PCs and NPCs and those that aren't tend to be objective benefits in the PCs favor (like getting to reroll dice each session with destiny).

How often are the monsters sneaking through a doorway towards the PCs? How often are the PCs defending a dungeon? How often does the party use their average initiative score?

That's a few ways I can imagine the rules seeming potentially weighted against the PCs (whether logically they are or not).

Players tend to ignore costs like mental, physical, or spiritual exhaustion as they often don't have mechanical effects.

And you probably should, too. IME, most groups are going to play your game such that anything without an explicit mechanical effect will, like going to the bathroom, get hand-waved away.

On the other hand, sometimes senses besides vision can also give things away. For example, D&D tends to assume invisibility makes someone unknowable and untargetable, but often times its easy to know where someone is without looking at them. If I hear / feel the door open, the chair next to me pull out, and someone sit in it, I know somebody is there without looking at them, invisibility doesn't factor into it.

D&D players often make that assumption. You presumably wouldn't know me from Adam if I invisibly pulled out the chair next to you, but you'd also presumably know something was going on (even if you, say, refused to believe in Invisibility). I strongly believe in Simulationist rules, where the Rules match the Fiction, where Invisibility doesn't make me pulling the chair out unnoticed.

On the other hand, actively hiding is an action. If someone knows where you are, or you want to be hidden from all potential observers, then you need to take an action to hide. Normally this involves moving into cover / concealment / camouflage and then staying still. This is a lot easier if you know who or what you are hiding from, as you only need to have cover / concealment / camouflage relative to them.

If I'm trying to hide a red checker in a sterile empty white room, I auto-fail.

If I'm trying to hide it in a sterile empty red room, I have much better chances, especially if I have some chewing gum.

If I'm trying to hide it in the open in a normal room, it's rough, but possible.

If it's a black checker in a normal room, any shadow could do the job (some are better than others).

Obviously, the best place to ensure nobody notices it (even when out in the open) is in with a bunch of other checkers.

Note that "relative to them" never entered into the equation.

If you are outside of the room, the enemy doesn't know where you are, and won't potentially see you. There is no reason to hide.

The reason to hide is "the door is about to be opened". It's the same reason I grabbed my gun and got in the tank. There 100% is a reason.

In this case, what you want to do is *sneak*. Sneaking is not an action, but sneaking into the room is *really* tough when you want to charge in and stab somebody in the face immediately after the door is kicked in and everyone is looking right at the doorway you are currently rushing through weapons drawn.

In a realistic simulation, everyone looking at the doorway instead of at the barbarian swinging an axe through their face is already dead. It's really easy to pull off against a *ahem* distracted target. I think I've mentioned this before.

Looks like you get this:

If you are going first, this might be very hard, if you delay until your party has engaged and distracted the enemies, it is probably very easy. You may then attack on the same turn.

The problem is Bob wants to rush into the room immediately upon the door being kicked open, meaning he will either need to take an action to actively hide or a -20 penalty to sneak for being watched.

Given that the players get to choose the order in which the PCs act, I 0% understand why Bob would mind going second, after the Barbarian (or whatever) has their attention, to sneak-attack the distracted foe. Are you sure Bob has a problem with this?

Bob thinks that sneaking into the room should be easier because, at some point in the day before entering the room or initiating combat, he spent six seconds crouching motionless in the shadows, and thus has the *hidden condition* from all potential enemies until spotted. To me, this is nonsense.

Bob is absolutely correct. Because he was not accounted for in their first impression when the door opened, they do not realize to account for him until they actively perceive him. Even someone paying attention doesn't have the "I've lost sight of Bob" trigger warning them of the danger until their kidneys go up for sale on the black market.

That said, despite having witnessed it IRL, I have no idea how one goes about removing one's self from the "active threat list" of those who are already aware that you are an active combatant on the other side, and effectively hide in the middle of combat. Thankfully, that's not what we're discussing.

Still... you seem to be using 2 different reserved words - "Hide" and "Sneak" - when discussing this. Why? Ignore your system for a moment, what are these two different concepts, in your mind?

Here's a few examples of you using those terms:

Spoiler: Playing Hide and Sneak

Show

Yeah, hiding behind a door and then having the door opened would indeed spoil being hidden. Just like having the curtain you are behind or the box / closet you are inside opened. Although I would certainly give you an initiative bonus for surprise if you were waiting to ambush the person who did the opening!

The idea that you could remain hidden behind something that is no longer there is frankly absurd.

Well, no, you could already be hidden *on the battlefield* to ambush someone right away in combat. But that would involve either sneaking into the enemy's lair before the rest of your party or drawing the enemy out of their lair to your hiding spot.

If you are outside of the room, you are automatically hidden (assuming opaque walls) regardless of whether you spend an action to hide. You then need to *sneak* into the room. If you are going first, this might be very hard, if you delay until your party has engaged and distracted the enemies, it is probably very easy. You may then attack on the same turn.

The problem is Bob wants to rush into the room immediately upon the door being kicked open, meaning he will either need to take an action to actively hide or a -20 penalty to sneak for being watched.

Sounds right.

My state can be "inside the tank" until my initiative rolls around, even if initiative hasn't been rolled. Just as my state could be (or, well, I suppose, "include" rather than "be") "behind a rock", or "Invisible", or any number of other things.

So why is it difficult for you to imagine someone whose state is "using their tower shield to provide best advantage against attacks", or otherwise in full defense mode, before initiative is rolled?

... ah. You have this concept of "winning" and "losing" initiative, that you're stuck on. Ah. I think I see it now.

AFAICT, your system is bumping up against the Simulation, and Bob is, in effect, calling you out on it.

So, Imagine that Initiative was actually rolled when both parties were aware of one another. The party took actions buffing themselves on their turns, and the monsters... probably twiddled their thumbs, from what you've said.

In this scenario, with your group-turn-based initiative, Bob is absolutely correct that nobody needs to roll initiative here on turn X, it's the party's turn, one person opens the door, the rest take full round actions.

Where Bob is wrong is that they still had to roll initiative X rounds ago, and see who got to act in the 1st round of buffing. Which is fine.

What isn't fine - by which I mean, what will likely make Bob explode, even if I were the one explaining it to him - is that the monsters, being aware of the party, could (and should) be using this time doing things like your "full defense action", and thus have some advantage when the party opens the door.

Normally, under a "normal" initiative system, a Playground Determinator would counter that the optimal course of action is, in fact, for both sides to go full defense the round before the door is opened, so that anyone who "loses initiative" at least has that bonus until they get to go. However, with your group initiative system, that becomes an advantage held by the monsters over the PCs, which is what would likely make Bob explode over it being "unfair"... when, in fact, it's just the natural consequence of the mechanics of the initiative system that Bob is exploiting / a natural consequence of the way that Bob wants to exploit the initiative system. Which, again, is fine for Bob to do so, and he is completely correct.

All that said? If I were a "Bob" in your megadungeon? I would have cast a campaign-duration Force effect (like a D&D Unseen Servant) session 1. Its purpose is simple: It holds doors closed until we are ready, then it opens doors. Plain and simple. So that, yes, we start combat when the entire party is buffed, with the entire party getting to take actions.

I don't think there's any way to salvage your really cool initiative system in the dungeon context, given that Bob has seen the light, aside from asking Bob if my explanation of his intentions is correct, and, if so, asking if he really wants the monsters (ones that successfully perceive the party, at any rate) on full defense (or in whatever other "stance" they choose) when the party gets to go, opening the doors themselves, and otherwise behaving as realistically (ie, completely) as his bypass of the initiative system is. Oh, and to have to roll initiative for the buff round (to see which buffs are active when, especially if the monsters do decide to open the door before the party does).

Try and find out if he's after an unfair advantage, or just the completely fair advantage of bypassing initiative by not beer-and-pretzels kicking down the door the second both sides are aware of each other's existence.

I have done this.

Bob hates this, because he doesn't like conversation (either in or out of character) and wants to remove it from the game.

He also says it's unfair that the other players get to communicate without being overheard, but that he cannot cast spells / use bardic abilities without being heard.

Lol. Ask Bob when the last time he heard his player, or anyone else around him did.

It's fine for the players to get to communicate without being overheard. I agree with him that, if the characters communicate, there should be in-game ramifications.

Make sure he comprehends the difference.

I suppose so, but it's very rare that something actually occurs which cannot be explained by realism. (Forget common sense, I hate that term).

TBF, I'm not generally a fan of the term, either. That said, "common sense" and "realism" are not synonymous - they have different (even if largely overlapping) domains.

In this particular case, I believe I was just loose with my words, and "Realism" not only works, but is arguably a better fit for most of what I intended.

More often, a player doesn't like the rules, and asks me to change / ignore them because they feel the rules aren't realistic, I say the rules are fine in my opinion, and then they get mad that I my idea of realism trumps theirs.

I'm not sure if anyone in Bizarro World should get to have a vote about what is "realistic". Your experiences, as you describe them, are so far outside the norm, I fear you and your group might get banned from using that term.

That said, you definitely do seem to have blind spots in your concept of what is "realistic" (like how in this thread you repeatedly seem to only conceptualize of "opposed" actions). Not knowing your players, I'm going to default to siding with them on arguments over "realism" - which, to be fair, is my default whenever anyone brings up a question of realism, because my presumption is that they may have hit one of the blind spots that everyone has. It's also a good stance to take as GM, because (with a few exceptions) most such things are indicative either of a GM blind spot, or, more often (at least outside of Bizarro World) caused by a miscommunication, a lack of a shared game state.

So, as a Player, GM, or outside observer, when a Player says, "that's not realistic", I tend to assume the player is correct, at least for the model of game state living inside their head, unless proven otherwise, and will investigate until we are both / all on the same page.

It is perfectly possible to lie quietly in the underbrush or crouch under a cloak, or to paint yourself in camouflage colors.

The problem is, hiding like this is an action, and once you start moving / talking / fighting you are going to have to make sneak tests to avoid giving away your position. Bob does not like either of those drawbacks.

Best guess? What's missing here is the +20 bonus for "opponent isn't looking for you, since you successfully hid & opponent never saw you & opponent is unaware of your existence & opponent is too busy dealing with somebody attempting to shove several feet of steal through their squishy bits to focus on looking for an unknown and presumably nonexistent threat" modifier. I'll bet that would placate Bob.

Yeah, hiding behind a door and then having the door opened would indeed spoil being hidden. Just like having the curtain you are behind or the box / closet you are inside opened. Although I would certainly give you an initiative bonus for surprise if you were waiting to ambush the person who did the opening!

The idea that you could remain hidden behind something that is no longer there is frankly absurd.

Uh, no. The door is still there, and I'm still hiding behind it. I've done this IRL. It works great (at least against kids). It also works great against me (or so insects and spiders clinging to the doors seem to believe).

I'm guessing this is another example of you getting stuck on one version of a concept (you said having examples would help you more than me making a general statement).

[Kish]

If the players always go first, then "total defense the round before the door opens" is a rule that would always favor the monsters. So there might be a trade-off here between realism/sanity and "making Bob's accusation correct".

My understanding is that in Heart of Darkness it is possible to "fail initiative." That is--it's not actually "the monsters take their turns once all players have gone"; it's "the monsters take their turns once those players who succeeded initiative--and thus get to go at all the first round--have gone." In second and subsequent rounds it's purely block initiative. So:

Combat starts.
Some of the PCs go.
The monsters go.
All of the PCs go.
The monsters go.
Repeat the last two lines until one side is wiped out.

[Talakeal]

But my point is, I wouldn't even bother with rules this finicky and high-fidelity at a normal table, so I certainly wouldn't use anything like this in Bizarro World with Talakeal's explosive group. I'd just use Hide, opposed by Perception, done. The added fidelity just isn't worth anything, afaict.

Opposed by *who's* perception might I ask?

Remember, the idea that I am arguing against is that the rogue hidden from everyone and will remain in that state all day until revealed.

In the case in point, you are giving up something - you're giving up other preparatory actions (like buff spells). It's giving those poor muggles relying on sinew and strategy something to do with the time they have before the fight starts.

There are very few spells with a one round duration, and of those that do exist, almost all of them are buffs for said poor muggles.

Buff spells also have a cost in mana, meaning that they have a trade-off even if it isn't measured in actions.

If the players always go first, then "total defense the round before the door opens" is a rule that would always favor the monsters. So there might be a trade-off here between realism/sanity and "making Bob's accusation correct".

It favors the defenders, which isn't always the monsters. But is usually.

Still, this isn't a real rule, this is something Bob came up with, so it shouldn't be laid at my feet if it isn't "fair".

If the monsters are readied to shoot anyone who comes through the door, do they get a +6 bonus to their initiative "DC"? Except...

***ERROR - QUOTE NOT FOUND ***

I think you said that people don't pre-declare their actions in your system... so how do you know if anyone is going through the door, to give the bonus (or penalty) to initiative? I'm really not sure if this rule is even actionable, let alone whether it favors PCs or monsters vs being neutral.

You don't need to pre-declare actions. But if you do you can get a modifier to initiative (good or bad) based on it.

Now isn't this interesting. This is a bit of mechanics that care when you roll initiative. If both sides are aware of one another, and roll initiative several rounds before they have LoS on one another, you get different results than if you wait for Bob (or not!Bob) to open the door. Other than everything, do your rules have any hangups that care about when initiative is rolled, that produce different results based on whether you are in or out of initiative?

Not quite sure what this means, but I will try and answer as best as I can.

Initiative is rolled any time two people are trying to act first, or when a character is racing against time against some environmental occurance.

I can't think of any rules that change when you are "in initiative". The only action you can't do is delaying your initiative, because you don't have any initiative to delay, or cast spells which directly modify initiative for the same reason.

"Narrative" and "Simulationist" are not the same thing.

From a Simulationist perspective, "hiding in the tank" should give me some reduced awareness of when the battering ram finally breaches the door (I can't see the door from inside the tank, after all, and my Listen check is penalized by a closed door between me and the sounds), which, translated to mechanics, likely should result in a penalty to initiative. Yes, that's despite - or in addition to - the fact that my held action is completely germane, and itself should grant me a +6 bonus in your system. Or perhaps the Perception check is an additional prerequisite to getting to act in the 1st round (although I feel that is less in sync with the way your system is designed).

I don't care about the Narrativist perspective whatsoever. I don't care whether it makes a better story for me to pop out of the tank before or after the orcs of LessDoors (thus the battering ram) charge through the breach. And, not to put too fine a point on it, I don't think your rules should care, either.

I don't care about narrativism as Ron Edwards define it.

Call it what you will "In-universe" "RP" "Fluff" "Simulation" "The Fiction Layer" "Flavor Text" "Description" "Story" "Narration". etc.

The stuff which is occuring which isn't rules and mechanics.

Strongly disagree. Bo9S had a better concept with "stances".

Agree to disagree I guess.

IMO stances are MMO style nonsense directly copied from World of Warcraft. But they do better represent how Bob wants hide to work, as he really wants it to work like World of Warcraft stealth mode which simply lasts indefinetly until cancelled or you take / deal damage regardless of circumstances.

"Stances" are of course a real thing in martial arts, but they don't work like this, don't really have anything to do with total defense, and are below the level of granularity that Heart of Darkness, Dungeons and Dragons, or World of Warcraft combat operate at.

Spoiler: Unrelated story, spoiled for length

Show

So, IRL, I'm paranoid. A white-haired old lady doesn't walk up and talk to me without me being in "Combat Mode", being aware of her distance, where her hands are, her focus, her center of gravity, etc etc. That's... just the way I'm wired.

Well, one time, a group of such white-haired ladies walked up to me, had a friendly chat, etc. And I recognized that I'd seen them a couple times before. But like Anime Protagonist-kun, I completely failed to recognize that one of them was hitting on me, even after she sent her friends away / her friends left her alone with me (I forget the exact inciting incident here).

It wasn't until she got physical - reached out and put her hand on me - that I read the scene. But not before she read how tense my muscles were (being in combat mode and all), and concluded I was just being friendly while being terrified of her advances. Which wasn't true - I was just oblivious to them until that moment.

Before I could process my new contextualization of the conversation, she made some quick excuses and beat a hasty retreat.

The point of a stance, a mode is in how you are spending your time, how you are contextualizing the scenario. In "Total Defense", you are looking at everything, not to take action on it, not to "change the world", but to optimize your own survival. So if you see something, you are fully prepared to act in the most defensive way possible.

That's fine, but that's not what total defense represents. Total defense is actively defending yourself, it is an action which procludes other activity.

Being in a state of vigilance like that might be readying an action to take total defense, but honestly is just sounds like being in a dangerous environment like a battlefield / dungeon and not being flat-footed.

Mechanically, neither Hod or D&D would give you a total defense bonus in that situation.

Look at it this way: If there are 2 characters, one of whom performed a full attack, and the other of whom went full defense, which will have a better AC when a Minotaur crashes through the far wall, and throws an axe at each? The one who is burying their swords in the Dragon, or the one who is actively trying to stay alive?

Did the minotaur surprise them?

If so, neither gets a benefit.

If not, the person taking total defense took the minotaur into account and would get an AC bonus.

You have this really strange hang-up on only being able to comprehend actions taken in a specific context. I don't know where you get it from, but it is decidedly to your detriment as a game designer.

If you say so.

Personally, I think that having passive "modes" hurts immersion, takes away player choice, and removes strategy from the game.

I would also imagine that while my players and some of the people in this thread would prefer "stealth mode" and "defense mode" like in an MMO, I can't think of any published RPGs where that is legal. Heck, my system is way more permissible than D&D for both stealth and total defense.

But, I imagine, that just because I draw the line at hiding and defense, most people who disagree would still have a line. For example, I doubt most people would be ok with mundane characters have a lockpikcing mode that causes every door they pass to fly open or an attack mode that damages anything that comes near them.

Interesting Gamist logic. So, when the monsters are waiting by the door, you allow the party to start both in front and behind the monsters, flanking them? If so, I'd say that this rule favors the PCs.

Potentially, if there was a way for them to get there (i.e. the monsters aren't defending a choke point of forming a defensive ring around the door).

How often are the monsters sneaking through a doorway towards the PCs? How often are the PCs defending a dungeon? How often does the party use their average initiative score?

That's a few ways I can imagine the rules seeming potentially weighted against the PCs (whether logically they are or not).

Yeah, PCs are on the offensive most of the time. Not sure if that makes the rules biased, and I certainly don't think that is either unique to my system or what Bob is talking about.

I suppose using group initiative could theoretically favor the monsters, but that would probably be highly situational.

And you probably should, too. IME, most groups are going to play your game such that anything without an explicit mechanical effect will, like going to the bathroom, get hand-waved away.

Right, which is why I like to have explicit rules to disincentivize exploitive or just plain silly behavior.

D&D players often make that assumption. You presumably wouldn't know me from Adam if I invisibly pulled out the chair next to you, but you'd also presumably know something was going on (even if you, say, refused to believe in Invisibility). I strongly believe in Simulationist rules, where the Rules match the Fiction, where Invisibility doesn't make me pulling the chair out unnoticed.

Agreed.

If I'm trying to hide a red checker in a sterile empty white room, I auto-fail.

If I'm trying to hide it in a sterile empty red room, I have much better chances, especially if I have some chewing gum.

If I'm trying to hide it in the open in a normal room, it's rough, but possible.

If it's a black checker in a normal room, any shadow could do the job (some are better than others).

Obviously, the best place to ensure nobody notices it (even when out in the open) is in with a bunch of other checkers.

Note that "relative to them" never entered into the equation.

You sure relative never enters into the equation?

So, for example, someone who never enters the room will still be able to spot the check? Someone who is inside the room and watches you hide it will still be able to miss it? And, most importantly to the situation at hand, hiding the checker in the sterile room has bearing on how easy it is to notice the cheker after it has been removed from the room and placed on the table outside.

The reason to hide is "the door is about to be opened". It's the same reason I grabbed my gun and got in the tank. There 100% is a reason.

Oh, yes, if you are standing right in front of the door, obviously. I was assuming there person in question was just standing a step to their left or right so that they are wholly obscured by the wall.

In a realistic simulation, everyone looking at the doorway instead of at the barbarian swinging an axe through their face is already dead. It's really easy to pull off against a *ahem* distracted target. I think I've mentioned this before.

Indeed.

The problem is Bob wants to be the first one through the doorway after it is kicked in and everyone is staring at it to see what is coming through. If he hung back and waited until the rest of the party had already moved in to engage, there would be no problem.

Given that the players get to choose the order in which the PCs act, I 0% understand why Bob would mind going second, after the Barbarian (or whatever) has their attention, to sneak-attack the distracted foe. Are you sure Bob has a problem with this?

Yes. Because hanging back would mean that he could potentially be out of range to melee the monsters, and waiting on the rest of the party could mean that he doesn't get to go in the first turn if they fail initiative.

Remember, the only goal here is first turn backstab no matter what.

Bob is absolutely correct. Because he was not accounted for in their first impression when the door opened, they do not realize to account for him until they actively perceive him. Even someone paying attention doesn't have the "I've lost sight of Bob" trigger warning them of the danger until their kidneys go up for sale on the black market.

What is the connection between him having previously hidden before kicking in the door and running through and just kicking the door in and running through? Why does having hidden at some point previously still matter after he has left his hiding spot and run through a watched doorway?

Still... you seem to be using 2 different reserved words - "Hide" and "Sneak" - when discussing this. Why? Ignore your system for a moment, what are these two different concepts, in your mind?

Hiding is finding a spot where people are unlikely to be able to see you, moving to that spot, and then staying motionless. It is an activity unto itself. It could also involve creating such a spot using camouflage or blinds.
Sneaking is a way in which you do some other activity, usually moving, where you are trying to make as little noise as possible and avoid areas that are being actively watched.

D&D makes a similar distinction between "hide in shadows" and "move silently".

My state can be "inside the tank" until my initiative rolls around, even if initiative hasn't been rolled. Just as my state could be (or, well, I suppose, "include" rather than "be") "behind a rock", or "Invisible", or any number of other things.

So why is it difficult for you to imagine someone whose state is "using their tower shield to provide best advantage against attacks", or otherwise in full defense mode, before initiative is rolled?

Because full defense is an active action. Being inside a tank or behind a rock or behind a tower shield are all passive.

A tower shield is not always the optimum way to defend oneself, and indeed in many cases is actively detrimental to defense. Besides, nothing about total defense in either HoD or D&D actually requires you to have a tower shield.

AFAICT, your system is bumping up against the Simulation, and Bob is, in effect, calling you out on it.

Are you saying that simulation is causing problems for game mechanics or game mechanics are causing problems for the simulation?

Now, keep in mind, Bob isn't calling me on it, I am calling him on it. He thinks that having hidden the round before opening the door should allow him a first turn sneak attack, to which I responded that if I allow actions taken before initiative to carry over, the monsters are just going to use total defense and counter his sneak attack.

So, Imagine that Initiative was actually rolled when both parties were aware of one another. The party took actions buffing themselves on their turns, and the monsters... probably twiddled their thumbs, from what you've said.

In this scenario, with your group-turn-based initiative, Bob is absolutely correct that nobody needs to roll initiative here on turn X, it's the party's turn, one person opens the door, the rest take full round actions.

Where Bob is wrong is that they still had to roll initiative X rounds ago, and see who got to act in the 1st round of buffing. Which is fine.

What isn't fine - by which I mean, what will likely make Bob explode, even if I were the one explaining it to him - is that the monsters, being aware of the party, could (and should) be using this time doing things like your "full defense action", and thus have some advantage when the party opens the door.

This is absolutely correct, and its not only what was likely to happen, it is what DID happen. It was me explaining this very fact to him that caused him to tell me that he "finally understands when I say realism I mean realism as I see, and when I say fair I mean fair for my monsters" and give me the silent treatment for a week.


[QUOTE=Quertus;25844750]Normally, under a "normal" initiative system, a Playground Determinator would counter that the optimal course of action is, in fact, for both sides to go full defense the round before the door is opened, so that anyone who "loses initiative" at least has that bonus until they get to go. However, with your group initiative system, that becomes an advantage held by the monsters over the PCs, which is what would likely make Bob explode over it being "unfair"... when, in fact, it's just the natural consequence of the mechanics of the initiative system that Bob is exploiting / a natural consequence of the way that Bob wants to exploit the initiative system. Which, again, is fine for Bob to do so, and he is completely correct.

All that said? If I were a "Bob" in your megadungeon? I would have cast a campaign-duration Force effect (like a D&D Unseen Servant) session 1. Its purpose is simple: It holds doors closed until we are ready, then it opens doors. Plain and simple. So that, yes, we start combat when the entire party is buffed, with the entire party getting to take actions.

Normally, under a "normal" initiative system, a Playground Determinator would counter that the optimal course of action is, in fact, for both sides to go full defense the round before the door is opened, so that anyone who "loses initiative" at least has that bonus until they get to go. However, with your group initiative system, that becomes an advantage held by the monsters over the PCs, which is what would likely make Bob explode over it being "unfair"... when, in fact, it's just the natural consequence of the mechanics of the initiative system that Bob is exploiting / a natural consequence of the way that Bob wants to exploit the initiative system. Which, again, is fine for Bob to do so, and he is completely correct.

All that said? If I were a "Bob" in your megadungeon? I would have cast a campaign-duration Force effect (like a D&D Unseen Servant) session 1. Its purpose is simple: It holds doors closed until we are ready, then it opens doors. Plain and simple. So that, yes, we start combat when the entire party is buffed, with the entire party getting to take actions.

I don't think there's any way to salvage your really cool initiative system in the dungeon context, given that Bob has seen the light, aside from asking Bob if my explanation of his intentions is correct, and, if so, asking if he really wants the monsters (ones that successfully perceive the party, at any rate) on full defense (or in whatever other "stance" they choose) when the party gets to go, opening the doors themselves, and otherwise behaving as realistically (ie, completely) as his bypass of the initiative system is. Oh, and to have to roll initiative for the buff round (to see which buffs are active when, especially if the monsters do decide to open the door before the party does).

Try and find out if he's after an unfair advantage, or just the completely fair advantage of bypassing initiative by not beer-and-pretzels kicking down the door the second both sides are aware of each other's existence.

By seen the light, you mean made up his own house rules?

Again, you don't roll initiative once you become aware of one another, that isn't a rule in my game.

If such a rule existed, it would favor the defender (which is usually but not always the monsters) but it does not exist.

Lol. Ask Bob when the last time he heard his player, or anyone else around him did.

It's fine for the players to get to communicate without being overheard. I agree with him that, if the characters communicate, there should be in-game ramifications.

Make sure he comprehends the difference.

I am not going to enforce the IC / OOC divide when it comes to play communication.

I feel that the group has enough issues with communication and self confidence that they do not need Bob or I policing them.

So, as a Player, GM, or outside observer, when a Player says, "that's not realistic", I tend to assume the player is correct, at least for the model of game state living inside their head, unless proven otherwise, and will investigate until we are both / all on the same page.

I have no problem investigating. But in my experience most people are unwilling to actually discuss their interpreations, and likewise consider consulting a third party or looking it up to be an aggressive act.

Best guess? What's missing here is the +20 bonus for "opponent isn't looking for you, since you successfully hid & opponent never saw you & opponent is unaware of your existence & opponent is too busy dealing with somebody attempting to shove several feet of steal through their squishy bits to focus on looking for an unknown and presumably nonexistent threat" modifier. I'll bet that would placate Bob.

Why does successfully having hid matter? That's the whole crux of it.

What damn difference does it make if Bob was lying still in the bushes under a camouflage 5 minutes ago or if he was dancing under a neon sign? In either case, the opponent has no ability to see him before he came through the doorway, and as far as I can tell, his activities while undetected five minutes ago have no bearing on whether or not the enemy will notice him while he is moving through the doorway.

Uh, no. The door is still there, and I'm still hiding behind it. I've done this IRL. It works great (at least against kids). It also works great against me (or so insects and spiders clinging to the doors seem to believe).

Oh, you mean physically hiding behind the door itself?

Yeah, that's possible, but given that the vast majority of doors open inwards, he is still going to have to move through the watched doorway to get into position to do so, and doing so is still going to be an action.

[Quertus]

Talakeal, I think we’re close to something, but I feel there’s a bit of disconnect in our replies to one another, so I’d like to reframe and simplify the scope of the conversation for a minute.

Now, to facilitate this, I’ll describe some terms and boundaries, so that hopefully our meaning is clear to one another. You’re familiar with GNS (which I’ll admit I probably misuse slightly). Earlier, when you said “Narrative”, I think what you meant - I think the most common phrase for what you meant - is “Fiction layer”.

So I’d like to discuss the fiction layer for a bit. This means I’m looking at things from a Simulationist perspective. But it also means that the conversation is system-agnostic - any calls to “how it works in your system” are irrelevant for the moment. In fact, since we’re discussing the fiction layer, any talk of mechanics whatsoever is misplaced.

With me so far?

The scene is two rooms connected by a closed door, with opposing forces in each room. I think both sides are aware that something is on the other side of the door, and are preparing for potential hostilities.

Am I with you so far?

Now, “for reasons” (we’ll come back to this later, when we have a larger scope) one side (“the NPCs”) have chosen to wait for the door to open; the other side (“the PCs”) have chosen to buff, then open the door, then storm the room.

Are we with each other so far?

Now, one PC… what? Has a special skill? Wants to do something technically anyone could do (so, wants to use an Everyman skill?)?

Regardless, one PC wants to do something that requires… what? Well, I’m pretty sure it would work if he were invisible, so “that the opponents don’t see him” is sufficient. But I also think it would work if one of the “opponents” or a Boulder did it, so “that the opponents don’t perceive as a threat” would also be sufficient. And I also think it would work if the PC suddenly leapt out of the opponent’s shadow, or if the opponent wasn’t on guard (irrelevant to this scenario), or (per my watching padded weapons combat) if the opponent had lost track of that combatant. To name a few.

So, my best guess is, “that the opponent is unprepared for an attack from that vector” is the “necessary and sufficient” version of the prerequisite.

How are we doing so far?

So, at the fiction layer, what are the character’s options? Well, they have a lot of options to achieve that state, from attacking while unseen to attacking while unnoticed to attacking while disguised to attacking while their actions are disguised to…

Point is, there are a lot of options here. And it’s possible that Bob pictures his character doing one thing, while you picture them doing something else, leading to disagreements.

I, for one, have absolutely no idea what either of you are picturing happening here.

Ok, that’s not entirely true. That is, I don’t know if it’s what you’re actually picturing, but we both agreed to the image of a Rogue stealing someone’s kidneys while the target was distracted avoiding a Barbarian trying to shove several feet steel through their brain, right? So let’s start with that.

Except, while we’re still exclusively in the fiction layer, I’ve one more comment to make: by hiding (or turning invisible, or taking cover inside a tank, or whatever) before the door is opened, Bob has ensured that the curtain rises on the opponents unaware that he, specifically, even exists.

——-

Ok, now we can start discussing mechanics, but only in a system-agnostic fashion. We’re asking, “conceptually, what’s happening here?”.

So let’s say we’re looking at the Rogue and Barbarian above. For this scene to occur, the now-needing-dialysis opponent must have… what? Registered the Barbarian as a threat, but not registered the Rogue as a threat? Nah, that’s probably not right. How about “registered the Barbarian as an immediate threat, but not registered the Rogue and/or their specific style of attack as an immediate threat”?

So, how could a Rogue achieve that state? Stealth (opposed by Perception), Bluff (opposed by Sense Motive), Magic (opposed by Knowledge? By Perception with a penalty?), Disguise (opposed by Perception or Sense Motive), trick Weapon (easy to oppose with Knowledge, harder with… pure combat experience and martial skill?), and doubtless many other ways.

I think, conceptually, you and Bob are both expecting that Bob’s actions involve Stealth, opposed by Perception. That’s not bad, but it’s hardly the only option here.

Still, it sounds like there’s a disconnect. It sounds like Bob has already made a stealth check - which I strongly agree with, btw - and expects… several things.

The first is that said Stealth check is what the opponents should be rolling Perception against. From a system-agnostic PoV? Eh, from that PoV, popular opinion would say he’s probably right. That is, most people these days want to make one “roll Stealth vs the castle Perception DC” to cover the entire infiltration from start to finish. Bob isn’t asking for much compared to that. When Stealth was an unopposed roll, I was fine with it being a per room or per scene thing. As an opposed roll, with “your guaranteed to fail at some point” stats, it certainly feels harsh to require him to make Stealth checks on consecutive rounds.

But, afaict, you aren’t interested in him making multiple checks: a single check seems sufficient in your mind for Bob to be set up for… whatever it is he’s doing *ahem* his character is doing. So, it seems we’re all on the same page wrt “one roll, Stealth (opposed by perception)”.

Here - I think - is where we’re on different pages: Action economy. And, as much as it’d be easier to move to your system at this point, I think I’d like to try to remain at the system-agnostic layer as much as possible. I think.

——-

At this point, it’s hard to get away from discussing actual “crunch”, but I’m trying to keep it in “not your system” parlance.

So, Bob’s character has fulfilled the “Stealth” portion of the requirement at this point. He’s even made the roll that sets the DC for opponents to notice his character. Now he just needs to (get out there and) stab someone (or whatever it is he’s actually doing).

If “Stealth” were best thought of as an action, then Bob would be correct, in that their character fulfilled that action before the door was opened. That is, I think, at the root of (this piece of) the problem. When, instead, you view “Stealth” as more like a stance, or a mode, then it becomes obvious that one gets the benefits and pays the prices for the entire time one remains in that stance / mode.

This is especially important given the divide of “Stealth” into (functionally) Hide and Move Silently, which I expect most any gamer on this board knows can be attempted at the same time, either in most popular systems or irl. Utilizing either or both is simply a part of being in Stealth mode.

Thus, while Bob’s character has fulfilled the Stealth requirement for not appearing on the opponents’ radar in the first place, Bob’s character still needs to pay the Stealth cost of… say… moving at half speed, or remaining in shadows, or whatever else the mode explicitly calls out as a requirement for Stealth *ahem* for this particular application of Stealth.

Which, if it were me, the requirements would look like, “cling to the Barbarian’s back disguised as their backpack, which they drop (as a free action) immediately before entering combat” or something. Because I have no idea what this “Stealth” is supposed to look like at the fiction layer. But I do know that, despite Bob having fulfilled the Stealth requirements of being hidden at the start of combat, Bob still needs to have their character remain in Stealth mode until such time as they take their action (whatever that is).

——-

All that said, even if Talakeal and Bob and Quertus were to all agree on everything up to this point, there’s still a problem. And the problem is this: while Talakeal and Quertus agree that Bob’s character would be best served entering the room after “The Barbarian has everyone’s attention” (or whatever; ie, “second at earliest”), Bob and Talakeal seem to be in agreement that there is some advantage to entering the room first, and thus Bob wants his character to charge in first… while retaining Stealth… somehow. In a way that leaves Talakeal and Quertus scratching their heads.

But here’s the thing: I think that the real issue is whatever part of the rules incentivize entering the room first. My guess here is that this part of the rules is wrong, at least in the context of this being round X of both sides being aware of one another, and that this broken rule needs to be fixed.

——-

Ok, I’m tired, I hope that made sense. Short version, as a tester, I agree with Bob on most counts. However, change how Stealth is conceptualized, and remove artificial benefits from going first, and I believe Bob’s actions and the fiction layer will line up much better.

Or that’s my guess. How many times did we lose one another here?

EDIT: senility willing, after your reply, there will be a part 2, to discuss things like NPC actions and setting Bob off in this context, and a bit more on modes and Stealth and full defense.

[Talakeal]

So we played again. Bob no longer remembers what he meant when he said he thought its stupid that hidden characters can possibly fail initiative.

There was a situation where they did try and storm a room after the initiative count had started; and as I expected, it was a bloodbath. A defended doorway does indeed function as what my navy coworkers call a "kill funnel".

Also, I officially declared to my group that I will no longer be counting each room as a separate scene. Instead, the scene ends *after* the PCs stop to bind their wounds or thoroughly search a room.

snip

We seem to be mostly on the same page.

The disconnect is viewing stealth as a "mode" with a "cost".

It isn't.

Hiding is not entering stealth mode, and it has no effect on your future ability to sneak. If Bob starts the encounter outside of the room, he is already undetected and has no reason to hide.

Sneak is a roll you make automatically to see if people who weren't aware of you become aware of you when you are taking an action that could draw attention to yourself.


Now, I know you want to be system agnostic, but that's really as far as I can go without bringing up specific mechanics.

The benefits of being unobserved:

1: The enemy cannot target you, and is unaware of your presence.
2: You receive +4 Initiative, +4 Larceny, and +2 Accuracy against enemies who are unaware of your presence.

The modifiers for sneak are:

-20 Moving through an area or interacting with a person / object that is being actively watched or guarded. A distracted observer doesn't apply this modifier.
-4 Doing something loud such as shouting, running, or firing a gun
-2 Large Size (per category)
+1-X Has Cover
+2-12 Has Concealment
+2 Small size (per category)
+2 Hiding in a crowd
+2 Large amount of ambient noise
+4 Doing something quiet such as whispering, attacking with a poisoned dart, or moving slowly. Deaf observers or magical silence effects automatically incur this modifier.
+4 Every ten paces between the sneak and their observer
+4 Observer is asleep

Success means you complete your task without being detected. Success by twenty or more is required to remain undetected after attacking, provided your target is not incapacitated by the attack.

All that said, even if Talakeal and Bob and Quertus were to all agree on everything up to this point, there’s still a problem. And the problem is this: while Talakeal and Quertus agree that Bob’s character would be best served entering the room after “The Barbarian has everyone’s attention” (or whatever; ie, “second at earliest”), Bob and Talakeal seem to be in agreement that there is some advantage to entering the room first, and thus Bob wants his character to charge in first… while retaining Stealth… somehow. In a way that leaves Talakeal and Quertus scratching their heads.

But here’s the thing: I think that the real issue is whatever part of the rules incentivize entering the room first. My guess here is that this part of the rules is wrong, at least in the context of this being round X of both sides being aware of one another, and that this broken rule needs to be fixed.

Because Bob wants to get off a sneak attack in the first turn.

If he is the only front liner to go before the opponents, that means he cannot sneak attack in the first turn as he needs to wait until someone else causes a distraction.

Likewise, if he starts outside of the room / line of sight, then he might not have sufficient movement to reach the enemies and sneak attack in the first turn.

Its that simple.

[Kane0]

If he rolls so well that he would go before a teammate that would otherwise enable a sneak attack, can he opt to wait without penalty?

[Talakeal]

If he rolls so well that he would go before a teammate that would otherwise enable a sneak attack, can he opt to wait without penalty?

Define "without penalty".

He can certainly delay his action freely and with no cost.

But, if he doesn't use it by the start of his next turn, he loses it (you can't just que up multiple turns with of actions and take them all at once, that would be so broken it puts all the other talk of "pre-buffing" to shame).

So, if none of the other front liners go before the enemies, he is not going to get his first turn sneak attack without making a roll high enough to sneak while watched.

Unless, of course, all the monsters come to them, which is wholly possible, but unlikely given how most battlefields are laid out.

[Morgaln]

Because Bob wants to get off a sneak attack in the first turn.

If he is the only front liner to go before the opponents, that means he cannot sneak attack in the first turn as he needs to wait until someone else causes a distraction.

Likewise, if he starts outside of the room / line of sight, then he might not have sufficient movement to reach the enemies and sneak attack in the first turn.

Its that simple.

My question would be, who is opening the door and when are people rolling for surprise/initiative?

I can see multiple scenarios here:

1. The players decide to go through the door. They need to roll initiative before they open the door, and whoever goes first has to be the one to actively open it.
In that case, Bob would be the one who has to open the door. Now if the enemies are not alerted yet, that should still allow him to open the door quietly, slip into the room and use the shadows to sneak up to a target. If the enemies have already been alerted, it's pretty much impossible for Bob to sneak in undetected, as they will be watching that door.

2. The players decide to go through the door. Initiative is rolled after they open the door, as that is when enemies and the battlefield are revealed.
In this case, I can absolutely see someone else throwing open the door and making the enemies focus on them. That person might then lose initiative and not go before the enemies, but their dramatic entrance might still cause enough distraction that Bob can slip in behind them undetected.
This one would of course also allow Bob to open the door quietly and sneak in undetected, provided the enemies aren't on alert yet.


To me personally, option two feels much more intuitive.

Also, how would you handle it in your system if a player wants to open the door just a bit and roll in a grenade? Or if one of them throws open the door and drops down, while the guy behind him throws in a fireball right away? Would you require these characters to win initiative to perform these actions? In my eyes, they should "autowin" initiative in these cases, as even high alert enemies will need a moment to process what's happening; even more so if they want to be efficient instead of firing wildly in the direction of the door.

[Talakeal]

My question would be, who is opening the door and when are people rolling for surprise/initiative?

Generally the person with the highest strength and / or armor opens the door.

People roll initiative as soon as one side declares an action that the other side wants to do something about and where timing matters.

Typically, this means one side decides to attack and the other side decides to defend themselves.

1. The players decide to go through the door. They need to roll initiative before they open the door, and whoever goes first has to be the one to actively open it.
In that case, Bob would be the one who has to open the door. Now if the enemies are not alerted yet, that should still allow him to open the door quietly, slip into the room and use the shadows to sneak up to a target. If the enemies have already been alerted, it's pretty much impossible for Bob to sneak in undetected, as they will be watching that door.

2. The players decide to go through the door. Initiative is rolled after they open the door, as that is when enemies and the battlefield are revealed.

If someone wants to quietly open the door and sneak inside, that is handled outside of combat before initiative is rolled.

Number two is correct.

In this case, I can absolutely see someone else throwing open the door and making the enemies focus on them. That person might then lose initiative and not go before the enemies, but their dramatic entrance might still cause enough distraction that Bob can slip in behind them undetected.
This one would of course also allow Bob to open the door quietly and sneak in undetected, provided the enemies aren't on alert yet.

This is, in my opinion, absurd. The idea that one person being "dramatic" will make their victims blind to the gang of people swarming in behind them weapons drawn is ludicrous from a narrative perspective, and a nightmare to adjudicate from a game mechanics perspective as you will have to keep track of numerous, perhaps dozens, of hidden characters.

Of course, absurd and ludicrous feats are what make larger than life heroes stand out, and it is possible to build a character who can make the test even with the -20 penalty, they just can't do so 100% of the time with no risk of failure, which isn't good enough for Bob.

Also, how would you handle it in your system if a player wants to open the door just a bit and roll in a grenade? Or if one of them throws open the door and drops down, while the guy behind him throws in a fireball right away? Would you require these characters to win initiative to perform these actions? In my eyes, they should "autowin" initiative in these cases, as even high alert enemies will need a moment to process what's happening; even more so if they want to be efficient instead of firing wildly in the direction of the door.

There is no such thing as auto-winning initiative.

In both of those cases, the attackers would receive hefty bonuses to initiative.

IMO a readied character could easily loose an arrow or rush the doorway in the time it takes for the door to open, one guy to drop down, and then for another guy to look into the room and cast a spell.

As for the grenade, that really depends on how long the fuse is and how close the character is cutting it before opening the door (if you are pre-cooking it, I hope for your sake the door doesn't turn out to be locked!)

[Morgaln]

This is, in my opinion, absurd. The idea that one person being "dramatic" will make their victims blind to the gang of people swarming in behind them weapons drawn is ludicrous from a narrative perspective, and a nightmare to adjudicate from a game mechanics perspective as you will have to keep track of numerous, perhaps dozens, of hidden characters.

Of course, absurd and ludicrous feats are what make larger than life heroes stand out, and it is possible to build a character who can make the test even with the -20 penalty, they just can't do so 100% of the time with no risk of failure, which isn't good enough for Bob.

I didn't say one person would draw the attention so that the whole rest of the party can stay hidden. But in the commotion of throwing open the door and charging into the room, it might absolutely be possible for one person to slip to the side and stay out of attention. That's actually more likely if there's a whole gang, since the obviously aggressive people with weapons will take a lot of the attention of the enemies. Of course the layout of the room and especially lighting conditions play a big part in this.
Look up selective awareness and how it works (I recommend the famous gorilla in a basketball video), it's not actually unrealistic.

There is no such thing as auto-winning initiative.

In both of those cases, the attackers would receive hefty bonuses to initiative.

IMO a readied character could easily loose an arrow or rush the doorway in the time it takes for the door to open, one guy to drop down, and then for another guy to look into the room and cast a spell.

As for the grenade, that really depends on how long the fuse is and how close the character is cutting it before opening the door (if you are pre-cooking it, I hope for your sake the door doesn't turn out to be locked!)

Honestly, if players coordinate (along the lines of "one, two, three, go") and the planned attack is not targeted (that's why I used fireball as an example) I really don't see anyone shooting an arrow before that attack has been made. At least not an aimed arrow. Just letting fly (probably in surprise) and praying it hits someone is possible but nothing else.
Reason is, the enemy's brain needs time to process that the door just opened, while the attackers brain has already processed the go signal at that point. Which is also why you can't wait for someone to draw a gun and then outdraw them; by the time you process that they have drawn, they're already shooting. Whoever draws first wins, purely due to neurological reaction times.

[Talakeal]

I didn't say one person would draw the attention so that the whole rest of the party can stay hidden. But in the commotion of throwing open the door and charging into the room, it might absolutely be possible for one person to slip to the side and stay out of attention. That's actually more likely if there's a whole gang, since the obviously aggressive people with weapons will take a lot of the attention of the enemies. Of course the layout of the room and especially lighting conditions play a big part in this.
Look up selective awareness and how it works (I recommend the famous gorilla in a basketball video), it's not actually unrealistic.

Sure, but again, its doing this and also being the first one in the room and the first one to attack that is the problem.

Honestly, if players coordinate (along the lines of "one, two, three, go") and the planned attack is not targeted (that's why I used fireball as an example) I really don't see anyone shooting an arrow before that attack has been made. At least not an aimed arrow. Just letting fly (probably in surprise) and praying it hits someone is possible but nothing else.

I guess it really depends on how long it takes to cast a fireball.

But man, I can see so many ways this could go wrong, any party that uses this tactic frequently is often going to find themselves blowing up their own allies (to say nothing of bystanders) or facing a swarm of angry monsters with their front line consisting of the wizard and a guy lying on the floor.

Reason is, the enemy's brain needs time to process that the door just opened, while the attackers brain has already processed the go signal at that point. Which is also why you can't wait for someone to draw a gun and then outdraw them; by the time you process that they have drawn, they're already shooting. Whoever draws first wins, purely due to neurological reaction times.

Fascinating. Any references you could point me in the direction of so I can do further reading on my own?

[Morgaln]

Sure, but again, its doing this and also being the first one in the room and the first one to attack that is the problem.



I guess it really depends on how long it takes to cast a fireball.

But man, I can see so many ways this could go wrong, any party that uses this tactic frequently is often going to find themselves blowing up their own allies (to say nothing of bystanders) or facing a swarm of angry monsters with their front line consisting of the wizard and a guy lying on the floor.



Fascinating. Any references you could point me in the direction of so I can do further reading on my own?

You can start with the Fast Draw page on Wikipedia, which does list times for quick drawing compared to average human reaction time. I'll see if I can find you some more scientific sources for deeper information.

[Kane0]

Define "without penalty".

He can certainly delay his action freely and with no cost.

But, if he doesn't use it by the start of his next turn, he loses it.

So, if none of the other front liners go before the enemies, he is not going to get his first turn sneak attack without making a roll high enough to sneak while watched.

Unless, of course, all the monsters come to them, which is wholly possible, but unlikely given how most battlefields are laid out.

Okay cool, sounds like a normal d&dish sneak attack ability then.

So he is reliant on himself rolling better than the enemy, plus an ally rolling better than the enemy, in order to get to use his (presumably defining) special attack?

Otherwise, he needs to spend actions/turns hiding in order to achieve the criteria to pull it off? Or gamble that the monsters will make a move sufficiently tactically unsound to enable his attack unsupported?

It just sounds like he is trying to ensure his primary 'thing' isnt rendered moot by things quite possibly out of his control. He wants to make a sneak attack. Is the exact qualifiers for the ability closer to say AD&D, 3rd edition or 5th edition sneak attack?

[gbaji]

First off. I think you and I are more or less in agreement on hide in general. But in the case we're talking about, the person hiding does know which directioin the NPCs are, and thus can hide "behind" things based on that known directinaliy, even if he can't currently see them, and they can't currently see him.

If their view is blocked and cannot be unblocked your "hide" action is incoherent. From their point of view you would still be hidden if you were standing in the open flashing neon yellow. You don't need to do anything to hide.

It's only incoherent if we assume we know everyone who might be able to see the location we are currently in. I'll touch on this more.

And that's why I put in the qualifier that the only place Hide is a coherent action is a place which can become observable through a future change in the environment (like opening a door).

That's not quite what you said though. You said this:

So hiding before the door is opened is incoherent *unless* you are hiding specifically in a place where they would be able to see you if the door was open.

To be fair though, I still somewhat disagree with both statements, but for slightly different reasons.

"Become observable" suggests that it's something that can only occur in the future. It's also vague as to the degree of "observable". It's better than what you said first, but still problematic. I would change the language to "potentially observable". And guess what? Unless your character has perfect knowledge of everything in the world arond them, they are *always* "potentially observable". My point is that a PC should be able to "hide" (if they choose to do so and spend the time/effort to do so) at any point, in any location (with penalties/bonuses applied of course) and for any reason, you know, just on the off chance someone is looking at the group. It seems to me that there is some value for the PC to declare this (and make a roll for it), if for no other reason than there *might* be someone looking at the area the group is in, and to determine who in the group they notice, and who they maybe just don't spot. Obviously, this is terrain and direction variable, but IMO, it's something that a PC should be allowed to do.

"in a place where they would be able to see if you the door opened" (which is what you said) is problematic. Why does the door opening matter? How do we know there isn't an NPC looking through a peephole at the party? It also opens up the interpretation (as does the other statement just to a diferent degree) that if you are not "behind cover", you are Observable, and thus can't hide anyway. But if you are behind cover, you don't need to hide, becuase it's "incoherent".

It also makes this very odd case where I'm around a corner 10 feet back from the door. I'm not only hidden by the door, but also hidden from line of sight to the room even if the door is opened. But I should be able to use my hide skill to "hide". Doubly so if the action-state of "hidden" is a prerequisite for using the "sneak" ability to then approach the NPCs without them noticing me.

Again, I'm kinda flailing around here because I don't know the system, but based on Talakeal's descripitions this seems to maybe create a situation where "you can't hide if you are behind the door". Once the door is opened, you can't sneak until you first hide". Thus requiring the player to spend an extra round/action/whatever "hiding" first, before he can sneak.

It also creates a problem where, I'm not allowed to say "I'm squeezing myself flat against the all on our side of the door, where I'm in some shadows, and partially hidden by the door jam", and allow a hide skill to be used, so that when the door is opened, the NPCs will see the big burly fighter with a sword, who just kicked in the door and is charging in, and then maybe notice the robe wearer with the glowing staff folllowing in right behind, and the archer with the bow running up behind them and shooting arrows, but in all the confusion and flickering light of torches and glowing staves and whatnot, just not see that guy squeezed up against the wall, and not notice him slip through the doorway and into the room.

To me, that's a valid use of a hide skill, even though the NPCs can't currently see the location your group is in.

If you want to be in a location which will be visible when the door is opened (knowing where those locations are doesn't require anything other than a general awareness of what can be seen through a door) but do not want to be automatically detected, you Hide. If you are in a location which will not be visible when the door is opened you will not be detected anyway unless you take an action which changes that. If you want to take such an action but still remain undetected you need to Sneak. You do not need to Hide before you Sneak because you were already hidden.

Which I absolutely agree with (and covers the case I mentioned above). The problem is that it doesn't seem as though this is how Talakeal is actually running the game. I'm perfectly fine with saying that the PC squeezing against the wall (but in a location that *could* be seen once the door is opened, has to make a hide) and that the PC handing out around the corner is equally unseen when the door opens cause the NPCs just can't actually see that location. And I agree that in both cases, the PC should be allowed to simply use the sneak skill to attempt to move foward into the room.

But it appears as though Talakeal is ruling that in both cases, the PC must first actually "make a hide roll" (spending an action doing so). And that this roll may only be made after the door is opened (or after coming around the corner). Again, maybe I'm completely misreading stuff here, but what I've been getting is that Talakeal would not allow the rogue to make the hide roll prior to the door opening under any circumstances, and that this is precisely what he was labeling as Bob wanting to "roll initiative before opening the door so they will auto-win". Bob wants to start the fight in "hidden" state, but is not allowed to, so he's saying "if you're going to make me spend an action hidding, then I should get to start the combat a round earlier and take the action then.

Again though, that's me struggling to actualy interpret what I'm reading. But I'm seeing a conflicct here, and none of the explanations actually make full sense. I mean, being hidden is a +4 to initiative, but then isn't everyone hidden if they are the ones opening the door? I guess I have to ask, when does Bob get to hide here?


I'm also actually kinda leaning on Bob's direction of "we should auto-win initiative" now though. I assumed that the description was "win and get an action, then NPCs go, then PCs get their normal action, then round ends. Repeat". Apaprently, it's "winning side goes, then losing side goes. Repeat".

Um... If one side "starts the fight" I'm inclined to give them the first round in a "take turns taking rounds" style combat system. That's kinda the benefit of starting the combat. I'm not even sure how it makes sense otherwise. I was assuming an "initiative rolled each round" sort of thing (to some degree based on some of the bonuses involved). I mentioned the whole "Hidden" bonus above. But it's relevant here. If this is literally rolled one time at the very beggining of the battle, and they just swap back and forth from that point on, but Talakeal rolls that initiative after they open the door and walk in a bit, I can see the frustration. If they are now in the room, they can't hide. If they are outside the room, I suppose they can. But are a movement "behind" everyone else.

Dunno. It just seems like a really clumsy way to do all of this. Just let the freaking PC hide if they want. Ask them what they are doing to hide, and then you (the GM) decide what modifiers apply based on who may be looking and from what direction and when). Done.

And that also creates issues with PCs who maybe don't just charge into the room. Or if they do want to charge into the room and take advantage of the surprise. I mean, I guess that can be handled to some degree here, but it does seem clunky to say "Ok. You kick open the door, and run into the room a few feet. The NPCs notice you. Now let's roll initiative and see what happens". As I posted earlier, I'd give the PCs one "set of actions" related to opening the door. For free. If the NPCs are "ready" (aware of the PCs and waiting), then they also get a set of actions, in response. Then we rinse/repeat I suppose.


Eh. I'm also not a fan of eternally running in the same order action rounds. But that's just a preference. For the system in question, I suppose it works well enough. But yeah, if you are trying to do a rules light system, just let the PCs do this stuff. Getting into strict detaiils of "you can hide when ... <conditions>" just seems overly fiddly.

[Talakeal]

I want to say thanks to everyone in this thread.

Even if I appear stubborn and argumentative (and I am) this really is helping me work out how I internalize stealth working and has given me a lot of ideas for how I can rewrite the rules in my game to present it better.

You can start with the Fast Draw page on Wikipedia, which does list times for quick drawing compared to average human reaction time. I'll see if I can find you some more scientific sources for deeper information.

Thanks.

Although reading that article, it does seem that there is some overlap in reaction and draw times, and it is only impossible to outdraw someone if you compare the elite times to the average times.

Outdrawing someone is a very important part of the whole wild west aesthetic, and as Heart of Darkness is more of a fantasy western than a medieval fantasy, its important to have the speed of your draw be an important aspect of your character, which is the primary reason why I use initiative modifiers rather than binary D&D style surprise rounds.

Okay cool, sounds like a normal d&dish sneak attack ability then.

So he is reliant on himself rolling better than the enemy, plus an ally rolling better than the enemy, in order to get to use his (presumably defining) special attack?

Otherwise, he needs to spend actions/turns hiding in order to achieve the criteria to pull it off? Or gamble that the monsters will make a move sufficiently tactically unsound to enable his attack unsupported?

It just sounds like he is trying to ensure his primary 'thing' isnt rendered moot by things quite possibly out of his control. He wants to make a sneak attack. Is the exact qualifiers for the ability closer to say AD&D, 3rd edition or 5th edition sneak attack?

Well, if he doesn't win initiative he won't get a first turn sneak attack regardless of how we are playing stealth.

But yes, if none of his front line allies act in the first turn, and there are no monsters in range of his hiding spot, he is going to have to either wait until the next turn, attack without the +2 to hit, or risk failing a stealth roll and spending a turn hiding.

I am not sure what those qualifiers are. What distinction are we talking about?

I am not really sure that a +2 to hit is "character defining".

"Become observable" suggests that it's something that can only occur in the future. It's also vague as to the degree of "observable". It's better than what you said first, but still problematic. I would change the language to "potentially observable". And guess what? Unless your character has perfect knowledge of everything in the world arond them, they are *always* "potentially observable". My point is that a PC should be able to "hide" (if they choose to do so and spend the time/effort to do so) at any point, in any location (with penalties/bonuses applied of course) and for any reason, you know, just on the off chance someone is looking at the group. It seems to me that there is some value for the PC to declare this (and make a roll for it), if for no other reason than there *might* be someone looking at the area the group is in, and to determine who in the group they notice, and who they maybe just don't spot. Obviously, this is terrain and direction variable, but IMO, it's something that a PC should be allowed to do.

I don't disagree here.

But such hiding should a: take an action, b: can be easily foiled by people who have a clear line of sight to your hiding place, and c: doesn't really have any bearing on what happens after you have left your hiding place.

Again, the idea is that hide is something you do, it isn't a switch you flip like activating a Star Trek cloaking device that leaves you undetectable indefinitely one turned on.

It also makes this very odd case where I'm around a corner 10 feet back from the door. I'm not only hidden by the door, but also hidden from line of sight to the room even if the door is opened. But I should be able to use my hide skill to "hide". Doubly so if the action-state of "hidden" is a prerequisite for using the "sneak" ability to then approach the NPCs without them noticing me.

If the people in the room don't know where you are, you don't need to hide from them. It is not a prerequisite to sneaking in at a later point.

Sure, you can hide in the hallway from potential observers, but again, that is going to take an action and isn't going to help much if they have a clear line of sight to your hiding place.

Again, I'm kinda flailing around here because I don't know the system, but based on Talakeal's descripitions this seems to maybe create a situation where "you can't hide if you are behind the door". Once the door is opened, you can't sneak until you first hide". Thus requiring the player to spend an extra round/action/whatever "hiding" first, before he can sneak.

You *do not* need to hide before sneak, you just need the enemies to be unaware of you.

In Heart of Darkness, when the game switches from a narrative scene to an action scene, you lay out the battle-board and place miniature figures. The GM then tells you where you can place your figures. In a standard dungeon, this will be near the door.

If the rogue is placed outside of the door (or has snuck into the room earlier before combat began) the enemies will start unaware of them, and thus they can sneak in behind their allies.

If the rogue is placed in the doorway with the rest of the group, the enemies will start the combat aware of them, and they will need to take an action to hide to make the enemies unaware, at which point they can sneak.

It also creates a problem where, I'm not allowed to say "I'm squeezing myself flat against the all on our side of the door, where I'm in some shadows, and partially hidden by the door jam", and allow a hide skill to be used, so that when the door is opened, the NPCs will see the big burly fighter with a sword, who just kicked in the door and is charging in, and then maybe notice the robe wearer with the glowing staff folllowing in right behind, and the archer with the bow running up behind them and shooting arrows, but in all the confusion and flickering light of torches and glowing staves and whatnot, just not see that guy squeezed up against the wall, and not notice him slip through the doorway and into the room.

To me, that's a valid use of a hide skill, even though the NPCs can't currently see the location your group is in.

That's a fine use of the hide skill, but again, its an action, and hiding will only be relevant if someone walks out of the room.

If someone is walking down the hallway, they will spot you right off as you aren't hidden from them.

Likewise, if you sneak into the room, it doesn't matter that you were hidden first, the enemy couldn't see you in either case and isn't aware of you.

Which I absolutely agree with (and covers the case I mentioned above). The problem is that it doesn't seem as though this is how Talakeal is actually running the game. I'm perfectly fine with saying that the PC squeezing against the wall (but in a location that *could* be seen once the door is opened, has to make a hide) and that the PC handing out around the corner is equally unseen when the door opens cause the NPCs just can't actually see that location. And I agree that in both cases, the PC should be allowed to simply use the sneak skill to attempt to move foward into the room.

But it appears as though Talakeal is ruling that in both cases, the PC must first actually "make a hide roll" (spending an action doing so). And that this roll may only be made after the door is opened (or after coming around the corner). Again, maybe I'm completely misreading stuff here, but what I've been getting is that Talakeal would not allow the rogue to make the hide roll prior to the door opening under any circumstances, and that this is precisely what he was labeling as Bob wanting to "roll initiative before opening the door so they will auto-win". Bob wants to start the fight in "hidden" state, but is not allowed to, so he's saying "if you're going to make me spend an action hiding, then I should get to start the combat a round earlier and take the action then.

There isn't a disagreement, this is how I am running the game.

Again though, that's me struggling to actually interpret what I'm reading. But I'm seeing a conflict here, and none of the explanations actually make full sense. I mean, being hidden is a +4 to initiative, but then isn't everyone hidden if they are the ones opening the door? I guess I have to ask, when does Bob get to hide here?

Yeah, this is a bit weird. I suppose this goes back to the specific vs. general awareness.

The entire party will get the +4 if the enemies don't hear them coming. If the enemies do hear them coming, they will not.

If Bob is currently sneaking (or has already hidden on the battlefield in an ambush position) he will also get a +4 bonus to initiative even if the rest of the party doesn't.

I'm also actually kinda leaning on Bob's direction of "we should auto-win initiative" now though. I assumed that the description was "win and get an action, then NPCs go, then PCs get their normal action, then round ends. Repeat". Apparently, it's "winning side goes, then losing side goes. Repeat".

Um... If one side "starts the fight" I'm inclined to give them the first round in a "take turns taking rounds" style combat system. That's kinda the benefit of starting the combat. I'm not even sure how it makes sense otherwise. I was assuming an "initiative rolled each round" sort of thing (to some degree based on some of the bonuses involved). I mentioned the whole "Hidden" bonus above. But it's relevant here. If this is literally rolled one time at the very beginning of the battle, and they just swap back and forth from that point on, but Talakeal rolls that initiative after they open the door and walk in a bit, I can see the frustration. If they are now in the room, they can't hide. If they are outside the room, I suppose they can. But are a movement "behind" everyone else.

Why even have an initiative system at that point?

I suppose you could still use it for "sport fights" and "duels" where everyone is waiting on the bell, but if the side who declares they are attacking first always gets the first turn, that eliminates 99% of the actual use for having initiative, and I can't think of a single RPG that does it this way.

Let me ask you, do you find this scene from Kill Bill absurd?

Because, while I am not a combat veteran myself, I have read many articles, watched many videos, talked to my combat veteran co-workers, and played a lot of FPS video games, and all of them tell me that this is not only possible, but is indeed the most likely outcome of storming a defended doorway.

Dunno. It just seems like a really clumsy way to do all of this. Just let the freaking PC hide if they want. Ask them what they are doing to hide, and then you (the GM) decide what modifiers apply based on who may be looking and from what direction and when). Done.

Ok, so hide has no cost, doesn't take an action, and can be done while observed.

In this proposed system, why wouldn't every PC attempt to hide every single turn? That is the clearly optimal move, no?

Of course, now the system is bogged down with calculating the hide DC and watching the player roll the dice for every PC every turn, and then we also need to mark who is and who isn't hidden (and from whom!) and then the DM had to put in a bunch of cognitive load either pretending they don't know where the PCs models are, or just have the PCs on the honor system to keep track of their own position without a model.

That's a lot of time, energy, and cognitive load devoted to what is a pretty (imo) silly and unfun situation that ultimately makes the "rogue" feel less special and important.

And of course, how does this effect difficulty? Do we drastically increase the number of monsters to balance out all the stealthy PCs, or do we also let the freaking monsters hide using the same rules?

If the latter, well, now we are again doubling the time, energy, and cognitive load.

And of course, we open ourselves up to the possibility that everyone on both sides succeeds on their hide check on the same turn, and suddenly the combat ends in a stalemate as nobody has any targets anymore.

And that also creates issues with PCs who maybe don't just charge into the room. Or if they do want to charge into the room and take advantage of the surprise. I mean, I guess that can be handled to some degree here, but it does seem clunky to say "Ok. You kick open the door, and run into the room a few feet. The NPCs notice you. Now let's roll initiative and see what happens". As I posted earlier, I'd give the PCs one "set of actions" related to opening the door. For free. If the NPCs are "ready" (aware of the PCs and waiting), then they also get a set of actions, in response. Then we rinse/repeat I suppose.

And how do you determine the action order of these actions?

IMO, the obvious answer is roll initiative. At which point we are right back at square one with the system functioning identically to how it already did.

Eh. I'm also not a fan of eternally running in the same order action rounds. But that's just a preference. For the system in question, I suppose it works well enough. But yeah, if you are trying to do a rules light system, just let the PCs do this stuff. Getting into strict detaiils of "you can hide when ... <conditions>" just seems overly fiddly.

I wouldn't say I am trying to do a rules light system.