D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
How meticulous can the planning be in a six-second combat round?
(I will admit that this is not strictly 4e-specific, but that's the game we play atm.)
As the DM for our 4e group, I have a slight problem with the sometimes meticulously considered and executed combat manoeuvres carried out by the players. We continuously get a volley of "If you go there, then I ..." - "But I could use this if ..." - "Don't do that because I am going to ..." and it winds me up most of the time. I have tried saying things like "Guys, come on. It's only a six-second combat round; there's no time for such meticulous planning." I haven't tried this one but I could rule that their instructions to each other are perforce spoken aloud and so the foes will hear them and react accordingly.
I am sort of in two (or more) minds about this. I understand that the PCs generally need some advantage and the ability to coordinate their efforts gives them this. I can also (largely) accept that the planning we see at the table does not necessarily translate to the battlefield (so a plan of actions discussed between the players may well become a shouted command from one character). Also, I am more of the narrativist school than the simulationist one, so I am not sure that clamping down on these instructions in the interests of verisimilitude is precisely what I am after.
Still, I also want to speed my game along if I can. And I *do* think that my players overstep what is acceptable sometimes.
Talk to your players. Tell them you think that decision making is taking too long. I like to enforce turns only taking a few seconds before some action is taken. A shouted suggestion is fine but a back and forth discussion will result in an initiative delay for those involved. Do your players stay focused on the action or are they in thier own little universe until its thier turn? Find out why it takes so long before trying a fix. Do the players ever discuss tactics outside of combat?
/snip
Do the players ever discuss tactics outside of combat?
This is a fantastic question to ask, because if they're a dedicated group of adventurers, I can guarantee that the characters would discuss tactics outside of combat. After a level up, it might be fun to discuss the new tricks/spells/prayers everyone has been engineering/studying/contemplating, etc. in character. This could be especially important with any tactically-minded characters. For example, in the game I play, we have two rogues: one specializes in finding Combat Advantage on his own. Thus, my Warlord would know that he has less need to flank with him than the other.
There are plenty of ways to incorporate character roleplaying into player tactics. As you mentioned, I would definitely consider tactical discussions something that actually happens in combat. Let the players know, too. They may surprise you with their ingenuity and creativity.
Tell them you think that decision making is taking too long.
There are, in fact, two issues here for me. One is that, yes, the whole decision-making process is taking too long and so subsequently bloating the encounters (we manage two good encounters in a 3-4 hour session). The second issue is the realism of it all. The whole round, not just each individual's turn, occurs over six seconds, but the players are planning things out like Grand Masters of chess each time. It's a difficult thing to adjudicate though.
I run 20 seconds turns. Ie, whenever a player's turn comes up, I start the timer. If he hasn't stated what he does, he uses an at-will at the nearest target. It helps keeping it more "real" according to my players. It also makes for quicker combats.
__________________
360 hours played
Gnoguh, human fighter/cleric (kensei->adamantine soldier)
Carric, elf cleric/ranger (radiant servant->saint)
Torn, tiefling wizard/cleric (divine oracle->sages of ages)
Truxas, human feylock/bard (feytouched->feyliege)
Tagron, human rogue (daggermaster->deadly trickster) 22nd level Musings of an Epic Virgin
There are, in fact, two issues here for me. One is that, yes, the whole decision-making process is taking too long and so subsequently bloating the encounters (we manage two good encounters in a 3-4 hour session). The second issue is the realism of it all. The whole round, not just each individual's turn, occurs over six seconds, but the players are planning things out like Grand Masters of chess each time. It's a difficult thing to adjudicate though.
The difference being that the PC's presumably know their abilities backwards and forwards, and will be practiced (and have discussed) tactically. Players on the other hand may sit together once every week or two for an evening, and commonly make grave interpretation errors, oversights, of fail to take into account knowledge the PC's may well have.
If you look an most team sports, basic tactics are obviously largely ingrained and often communicated by actions, not words. That's never going to work at a game table; talking about it is a poor simulation thereof.
In short, I don't there's a fundamental plausibility issue here - this is a gameplay issue. Some types of tactics even after much discussion are going to be performed worse, others better. Notably, the DM probably has the largest advantage here; if he wants two creatures to cooperate (e.g. to both get flanking), this typically works whereas it's commonly harder to pull off for PC's since it would involve readied actions for a minor benefit.
So, if it's a gameplay issue, then treat it like one: don't object to discussion of tactics perse, but object to the overall time it takes. Use a timer if needed. Encourage people to make quick decisions by not penalizing them if they do something incredibly stupid due to some oversight - better the average turn is decent but imperfect and that you get a take-back now and then than that everyone always overthinks everything. If you or a player forget an effect (whoops, I couldn't have actually done that, I was prone...), don't redo the turn, but just try to approximately adjudicate the difference on the spot.
__________________
4e balanced random loot system
- Think item wishlists are devilspawn?
- Dislike the impact of a few bad item picks by the DM on the party?
- Or find it ludicrous that PC's constantly just "happen" to find magic items tailored to their needs?
Try: A simpler treasure system for (mostly) random loot.
3.5 death&dying variant
- Tired of players that won't cure their mortally wounded allies 'cause "he's only at -2"?
- Tired of a dying mechanic which uses anachronistic d10's?
- Tired of a dying mechanic which never kicks into action for high level characters, which tend to go from alive and kicking to instant death before anyone can intervene?
- Tired of horribly complex house rules?
Try: Death & Dying - a better (and simple!) system
There are, in fact, two issues here for me. One is that, yes, the whole decision-making process is taking too long and so subsequently bloating the encounters (we manage two good encounters in a 3-4 hour session). The second issue is the realism of it all. The whole round, not just each individual's turn, occurs over six seconds, but the players are planning things out like Grand Masters of chess each time. It's a difficult thing to adjudicate though.
Start enforcing a decision within a reasonable time. If discussion continues just say "delay" and move down the initiative chart. When the last creature has acted for the round give the delayed players a last chance to act then start the next round. I guarantee that it will only take 1 time of the monsters beating on them twice in a row for them to react to combat as furious action rather than a chess match.
Thats one of the advantages to a turn based system without time limits. In our regular game most of us play D&D for tactics than role-playing. For heavy role-playing we switch games.
Our rule is that when it gets to be your turn, you have to act (within say, 20 seconds), or you have automatically delayed until you tell your DM what your character wants to do.
You can do all your planning you want outside your own initiative. If you have a plan, you should try to inform the other characters so they don't foul your plan.
The biggest problem we have is when the healer doesn't heal and a bloodied characters doesn't say he is bloodied.
Another rule we have is that the GM has one backtrack, and the players have one backtrack per combat. This also speeds up things.
Another is to have no cross table metagaming discussions or suggestions in combat outside of a player's own turn in which case he can say one thing.
So, "Fred, help me flank this guy" or "Barnie, use your Lightning power on the Vampire" is ok. Making two suggestions (or three or whatever you think inappropriate) is not.
Carefully explain the situation ahead of time and explain that you will be enforcing it by having the player who either makes too many suggestions on his turn, or the player who makes a cross table suggestion, do a melee or ranged basic attack on his next turn.
I have a player who does this as well. It's a bit annoying that he won't just let the other players play their PCs. My issue is different than yours, but it boils down to some people having to influence the game out of character.
By limiting the suggestions to player's turns, it not only speeds up the game, but it also forces the less tactically minded players to engage a bit more (as opposed to them allowing the other players to figure it out).
__________________ The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.
The difference being that the PC's presumably know their abilities backwards and forwards, and will be practiced (and have discussed) tactically. Players on the other hand may sit together once every week or two for an evening, and commonly make grave interpretation errors, oversights, of fail to take into account knowledge the PC's may well have.
Thank you. As a player, this "you have 10 (20, whatever) seconds to choose an action" idea smacks of punishment for certain styles of play, including mine.
While I can understand placing time constraints on the occasional combat for thematic/plot reasons -- to convey a mood or sense of urgency unique to the context -- I cannot endorse doing it for the general purpose of realism.
The single overriding reason I can think of to place limits is to prevent boredom and disengagement on the part of the other participants.
I'd also like to point out that sometimes there are non-tactical questions at stake:
-- Do I attack an opponent, or do I stop to Heal-check my fallen comrade? Maybe I'm angry with my comrade, or in love with him/her. Maybe the opponent is my sworn enemy AND I'm in love with my comrade. My PC's choice should be emotionally appropriate and not just tactically sound -- and possibly instead of tactically sound.
-- Do I attack an opponent, or grab the spellbook before it is consumed by flames? I have reason to believe the spellbook contains a ritual I've sought for years.
Just as eamon points out that the PC knows his/her tactics up and down and inside and out, the PC also knows his/her emotions, plans, priorities, etc. intimately and with a concrete urgency that a player can only simulate. There may be times when the player knows instantly what choice to make, but in other cases a mental review is required. That review takes time, and in my opinion, that time should be granted.
The single overriding reason I can think of to place limits is to prevent boredom and disengagement on the part of the other participants.
This x 100. If everyone at the table is ok with detailed action analysis and strategy chats then there isn't a problem. The whole gang might only get to play one very detailed encounter per session but if that provides fun and entertainment for all then have at it.
The OP was expressing dissatisfaction with the overly long turn taking and thus it becomes a problem.
The PCs are typically this party that's fought together, either for a long time (backstory), or through some very intense battles (considering how fast they go up in levels), and are truely exceptional individuals. The warlord can get an ally back into the fight with a few encouraging words, for instance - that's a power, but it also implies a great deal of mutual trust, cooperation and respect within the party.
It's not at all unreasonable for close comrades-in-arms to execute precisely timed or seemingly 'choreographed' manuevers, either with IC shouted orders/ideas or wordlessly, with a look or gesture or just familiarity with eachother's styles. The players may take a few minutes of pointing at the board and talking over eachother's ideas to settle on the plan, but IC, it should be nothing so discordant (nor so obvious to the enemy).
Similarly, a player may have a character who is a seasoned warrior or shrewd tactician, while the player is not so tactically minded - letting him solicit advice from other players so he can choose actions that make sense for his character isn't a bad idea.
Of course, if the party is one that is inexperienced, mis-matched or new to eachother, it might make sense to limit such things, for the sake of RP. Still, it wouldn't do to limit it to the extent that it makes the party much less effective, and as the PCs get to know eachother - sooner if the RP 'training together' or getting to trust eachother - it would make sense to relent.
And, of course, if it's slowing things down and making the game less fun, break out the egg-timer and put a hard limit on planning and discussing in the middle of a fight.
I am firmly in the "give the players a bit of a break" camp. Even a level 1 fighter probably has 10x the tactical knowledge and skill that I have; I can easily explain players' constant communication, etc. during combat as the result of "off camera" tactical practice that the party participates in, or at the least tactical discussion. When the PCs have downtime, surely they talk about their combats and what they should have done and how to improve.
So when Ranger Rick is sitting there and the player can't decide which target to charge and attack, or which power to use, and other players chip in with advice, etc. I assume that at some previous time the PCs have talked about a similar situation and come up with a reasonable solution.
Of course, as players get more and more experienced, I hope the amount of time required for decisions drops (In my game I am planning on instituting a 5-second rule for deciding what you are doing, and possibly even a chess-like rule of "once you take your hand off the mini, it's there... no takesy-backsey!")
I agree with eamon and prestidigitalis, PC's actions practiced and honed. A caution though, do not let the pendulum swing too far, to the point where players are not even considering actions outside their turns, and then spend an ungodly amount of time weighing their choices while the rest of you twiddle your thumbs.
There is something to be said for paying attention and weighing your options while it is not your turn. Watching enemy movement, and keeping your powers in mind. Of course, sometimes the turn right before yours buggers what you were about to do, but in that case you'd be justified in spending a little more time. Nothing is more frustrating that waiting for someone to make up their mind for five minutes, and then having them magic missile a minion. If you can't think of something mindblowingly awesome, then make it quick. Not every turn needs to be a grand demonstration of your tactial prowess, the game has enough wiggle room for you to phone a couple of your turns in occasionally.
I am firmly in the "give the players a bit of a break" camp.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukelightning
Of course, as players get more and more experienced, I hope the amount of time required for decisions drops (In my game I am planning on instituting a 5-second rule for deciding what you are doing, and possibly even a chess-like rule of "once you take your hand off the mini, it's there... no takesy-backsey!")
I have to say, I don't see how you can reconcile those two thoughts. Am I simply failing to appreciate some kind of joke in that last paragraph?
It's one thing to hope that the time required for decisions drops, but it's quite another to go all draconian if on a particular turn a PC fails to beat the clock due to an unexpected twist in the tactical situation or a simple failure to concentrate for a few moments.
I have to say, I don't see how you can reconcile those two thoughts. Am I simply failing to appreciate some kind of joke in that last paragraph?
Perhaps I am an enigma wrapped in a paradox wrapped in a low-carb multigrain pita?
I guess my weasel answer is that the "5-second rule" is kind of my ideal goal... and really most of the my the players do choose their actions rather quickly, it's just the times they spend a long time pondering moves stick in my memory more. I don't mind other players chiming in, giving advice, etc. because that means they are engaged in the game and paying attention, so their own turn is likely to go faster.
The no-taksey-backsy, however, I think I will implement. I have situations where someone goes and charges at an enemy, then starts to roll his attack and then changes his mind...goes back to his start, moves in a different way, then changes his mind....
It's one thing to hope that the time required for decisions drops, but it's quite another to go all draconian if on a particular turn a PC fails to beat the clock due to an unexpected twist in the tactical situation or a simple failure to concentrate for a few moments.
That's the hard part to figure out - will your group view your clocking them as draconian or agree with you and roll with a speedier process to add realism?
I've DM'd to all kinds of groups, and while, as the DM you control the flow ofthe game, make sure that this level of detail is comfortable for you players.
__________________ Life is the game that must be played. ~Edwin Arlington Robinson
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
