On Friday we comb through our extensive archives to find an older article that we feel deserves another look. From September 12, 2012, Dungeon’s Master once again presents: The New Initiative – Talk then Fight.
We have it so ingrained in our D&D mindset that rolling initiative is the natural precursor to killing monsters that very few PCs will take a second to try and defuse a combat situation with words. And those that do usually act so far down in the initiative order that by the time they get to go the fight is already well underway. Yet talking is a free action. In-game, your PC can talk even if it’s not his turn – even if he didn’t win initiative. However, players I’ve gamed with rarely take advantage of this before combat begins. Players roll initiative and want to act in that order. So why not roll two initiatives – one for talking and one for fighting?
When I was at GenCon I had an interesting discussion with a few other gamers about initiative. One of them was telling me about the way initiative works in the Doctor Who RPG. Now I’ve never played this RPG and I don’t have any of the books, but as it was explained to me (rightly or wrongly), the initiative goes through three phases.
- Anyone who wants to talk has the opportunity to do so. A character can try to appeal to their opponents not to shoot. They can do this through reason or intimidation, for example.
- When talking doesn’t work, anyone who doesn’t want to fight can move. When your opponent is clearly not a talker or not convinced by your silver tongue, you can flee or dive for cover.
- Anyone left in the line of fire can engage in combat.
Now I’m the first to admit that D&D and Doctor Who are very different games. D&D is built around combat. The fighting is an integral part of the game and players want to kill stuff. Doctor Who is not a combat-heavy game. If you’ve ever watched the TV show you know that The Doctor is always trying to calm everyone down to defuse potential combat before it ever starts (which is obviously why the initiative system is set up as it is). But there is something to be said for at least looking into this approach to initiative.
I’ve played in many D&D games where someone wants to try and talk to the monsters in an attempt to resolve a situation without combat. And in most of these situations someone else, usually a character who is optimized for combat and isn’t good at the talking parts, decides to attacks. In my experience the character with level heads are not usually Dex-based builds and rarely go at the top of the order. So in order to let them try to talk their way out of a fight why not introduce a second initiative? Here’s what I’m thinking.
The next time the DM says “Everyone, roll initiative,” you’ll roll twice. The first initiative is the talking initiative, which is resolved before combat since talking is a free action. Make a Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate check (depending on how you plan to handle the situation) to determine the talking initiative order. This check is just to determine who acts first and has no bearing on the success of your impassioned plea to avoid hostility. The second initiative is the normal combat initiative. No changes there.
Characters that want to act during the talking initiative have a chance to quickly address their opponents. Remember that this is a free action that is happening while everyone is drawing their weapons and getting ready to engage in combat. You can’t give a formal address that runs on for hours, but you can call out a few carefully chosen words to try and defuse a tense situation. Participating in the talking initiative is optional. After a PC acts during the talking initiative they follow it up with the most appropriate skill check.
The monsters may respond with words, they may not. All PCs can make Insight and Perception checks to determine if the foe is willing to talk or if they just want to fight. This isn’t usually going to be a hard check. Once everyone who wants to talk has done so, the normal combat initiative is resolved and things run as they normally would.
If the talking worked, it’s unlikely that the PCs will need to fight. Of course, someone on team heroes may still want to kill something, and that’s certainly allowed. This is when the other players, especially those with PCs good at Diplomacy, need to remind the combat guys that there are advantages to not fighting and killing everything you see. The DM should also encourage PCs to be mindful of their alignment. It’s unlikely that good PCs will attack opponents who have willingly surrendered.
The only exception that immediately comes to mind regarding the new initiative is when PCs and monsters begin in adjacent squares. The idea with the talking initiative is that no one is close enough to an enemy to attack them before a few words can be exchanged. In the unlikely scenario that PCs are already adjacent to monsters when initiative is rolled, I’d allow only those characters to insert their combat initiative into the talking initiative. This way they can still take a quick swing at their opponent before or while the talking is happening. The idea is that no matter what’s said, it’s not going to sink in faster than my blade.
How do you handle situations in your game today when someone with a low initiative wants to talk before the fight? Do you see value in introducing a talking initiative? Do you think that if there were a formal mechanic for talking before combat more PCs would take this option and try to defuse combat before it starts? Do you think that adding a new mechanic is just another level of recordkeeping that will slow things down or do you think the benefits outweigh this obstacle?
Related reading:
- Understanding Initiative and Surprise in D&D
- Retreat Is Always An Option, At Least It Should Be
- Does Alignment Matter in 4e D&D?
[jetpack_subscription_form title=”Looking for Instant Updates?” subscribe_text=”Subscribe to the Dungeon’s Master Feed for up to date info from your favourite D&D site.” subscribe_button=”Sign Up Now”]
View Comments (5)
I am fortunate enough that the parties in most of my games are very creative at avoiding combat. Typically, we don't even roll combat initiative until we are sure nobody wants to speak. If we do get ambushed, we still get our free action to speak on our initiative, and we have many tricks to stop combat even after it has begun.
In one of my home campaigns (playing 5e), we take prisoners and interrogate them regarding the next group we plan to engage. We do recon, and depending on the situation try different methods. Initially, we used intimidation to cause them to surrender out of fear for their lives. At this point, we have been disguising ourselves and getting close to our foes in order to gain their trust. In these scenarios, we have no intention of letting them live, just getting the best position of attack.
In my 3.5 home game, we typically just try to convince our foes that we are scarier than whomever they are working for to get past, and that they should turn on their oppressors with us.
In any scenario, we hold to a 6 syllable limit in combat to make sure we adhere to the assumed time of a round.
What we have done in the campaigns I am in is, after we all roll initiative, if someone wants to try striking up a dialogue, they ask everyone at the table to hold their action. Granted, this works best if the big bad doesn't end up going before the one that wants to talk, but they can use a free action to state that they would like to talk. The DM might make them roll something at this point to see if the big bad is amenable.
This seems to work pretty well as everyone at the table generally understands the value of not fighting all the time, especially if we gain nothing by fighting or if we are already pretty worn out from fighting. So, we will all hold off until the character that wants to talk has a chance to talk. The appropriate rolls are rolled and we all see where the pieces lie.
There's also the chance that someone else might piggyback off of the dialogue to increase the possibility that it is successful. If it all goes well, we all walk away. If not, everyone can now sue their delayed actions and start swinging for the fences.
Again, this only works if everyone at the table agrees to try to talk first. If you have been a party for a while, and everyone knows how the other characters think, then we can usually try talking first. Or, if someone jumps the gun and starts attacking, everyone else might complain that we wanted to talk and thus we need to do some retconning.
Whatever method is chosen, I LOVE the idea of having an opportunity to try to diffuse the situation through words. As far as I'm concerned, my favorite part of D&D is the role playing, getting to discover things and talk you're way through tense situations. As great as the combat can be, I could live without it - some of my favorite sessions didn't have a single battle. Combat is always my plan B. Plus in one of our games I play a bard, so I have an advantage when it comes to talking, but when other characters charge into battle, sword drawn and spells flying, plan B goes into effect sooner than I'd hoped. So having an opportunity to squeeze in a quick persuasion check sounds AWESOME!!!
My group doesn't need this to get them to talk, but it might help them to stop making mid-combat speeches so much. Creating a clear divide between, "now you can talk as a free action" and "yes, you can talk, but if you speechify in the middle of combat, someone's going to clock you" would be helpful (and speed combat up considerably, I bet). I have a couple of players who abuse the "talking is a free action" rule to have ten-minute long in-character conversations, and then pitch a fit when I cut them off, because talking is "free."
We've eliminated initiative altogether as a 'start to combat.' Every encounter happens as just part of the story, with the PCs and monster/NPCs actions occurring in a natural flow. If somebody decides to attack, they attack.
If there's ever a question as to whether one action completes before another, THEN those involved roll initiative, although we're characterizing it as a reaction roll. Initiative is essentially an opposed check to begin with, and in most cases who completes their action first is irrelevant.
For example, in a straight melee combat, if neither of the opponents' strikes will kill or incapacitate the other, it doesn't matter which one struck first.
While we still need to keep track of rounds, the actions occur in a logical order, often simultaneously. Even though this has greatly improved the feel of combat itself, the bigger benefit has been eliminating that hard stop between the rest of the game and combat.