Encounter Strategy Sessions

[pdzoch]

I think I need to put a timer on my players for their strategy sessions for every encounter. They will debate waaaay too long on how to approach every encounter. I don't mind the players working out how the characters would execute the encounter, but the players will metagame, come up with conflicting ideas (and a few weird ones), and devolve into a debate that drags out the strategy session too long.

My solution recently is to grow the encounter the longer they debated (added an additional monster to the encounter). It worked naturally for one encounter, but I would not want to artificially invoke changes all the time (which disrupts carefully balanced encounters to story flow).

 

[Celebrim]

I think I need to put a timer on my players for their strategy sessions for every encounter. They will debate waaaay too long on how to approach every encounter. I don't mind the players working out how the characters would execute the encounter, but the players will metagame, come up with conflicting ideas (and a few weird ones), and devolve into a debate that drags out the strategy session too long.

My solution recently is to grow the encounter the longer they debated (added an additional monster to the encounter). It worked naturally for one encounter, but I would not want to artificially invoke changes all the time (which disrupts carefully balanced encounters to story flow).

I don't know that you can reasonably limit encounter planning sessions that occur prior to combat. Indeed, I don't know that you should, as it's probably an indication that your players geek out on tactical stuff.

You can do the following:

a) Charge them in game time for the time that they spend planning. So if they spend 30 minutes planning, and the enemy is in any fashion aware they are under threat, they'll use that time to shift positions, fortify, and prepare within the limits of their intelligence.

b) Insist that any planning and communication that occurs during combat follow the rules and the fiction of the game. So there is no time out in the middle of a melee to figure out what to do or to negotiate back and forth how you think other players should behave. Players communicate with each other only on their own turn, they can communicate only a single sentence, and they have 6 seconds or so to specify their plan of action or they forfeit their spot in the turn order. Monsters can overhear their planning and react.

c) Have monsters that are proactive and reactive. For example, it would not be out of character for a smallish goblin tribe to pack up and move if given an hour or two to recover from a hit and run attack. If the players planned a dramatic attack, they'd swoop down onto an empty cave with all treasure removed. That's IME always funny, because it shocks the players completely the first time it happens. Meanwhile, the tribe would be making best speed for the nearest allied tribe. It likewise wouldn't be out of character for a largish goblin tribe, if targeted by a hit and run raid, to send for reinforcements from its outlying fiefs, and to immediately send out scouts to try to figure out where the PC's were holed up, to try to harass the PC's at night to prevent them from sleeping, and to generally make themselves a nuisance rather than wait for the PC's to do something.

d) Keep them on their toes. Planning sessions at length require good intelligence gathering. Generally speaking, it's almost impossible to gather perfect intelligence on a peer level foe who knows what sort of tricks an enemy will pull to gather intelligence and will work to counter that. Without perfect intelligence, extensive planning is likely to go horribly awry on the basis of missed details and false assumptions. If the PC's are going heavily into intelligence gathering and tactical planning, it's a sure sign you've not been putting enough thought into enemy counter-measures because surely the Pc's aren't the first people in your creation that have ever tried this stuff.

 

[ccs]

If this is happening once initiative has been rolled simply ask whichever player is up "What do you do"?
If they start strategizing & debating instead of acting? Then skip them that round & move on to the next person. Repeat the question & potential turn skipping as oft as required.

 

[Jhaelen]

If this is happening once initiative has been rolled simply ask whichever player is up "What do you do"?
If they start strategizing & debating instead of acting? Then skip them that round & move on to the next person. Repeat the question & potential turn skipping as oft as required.

Well, if you do that once, the players will simply refuse to roll initiative the next time to discuss strategy.

This is a well-known problem in our game group and discussion typically only ends because one player's eventually fed up and just acts to get things moving again. Sometimes it also helps to remind the players that usually their best plans don't survive first contact with the enemies...

All in all, fortunately, discussions in D&D 4e don't take as long as they did in 3e. This is due to a single combat turn not being as crucial as it used to be, and due to 4e's inherent 'power curve', that causes encounters to be rather obviously 'front-loaded', i.e. monsters tend to get the upper-hand initially but don't have the staying power to press their advantage home. It's what makes 4e combats exciting, and most players have realized, there is little that can be done to change that natural tendency. Combats are more dynamic and unpredictable, so meaningful planning can only occur a few turns into the battle.

In 3e even epic high-level battles rarely took more than 3 or 4 combat rounds, but each of these rounds took incredibly long to complete. Often the first turn would already be decisive: The side that first manages to get through with their Mass Dispel had a significant advantage, especially if they could prevent their opposition from doing the same. Instant death effects were also quite prevalent, causing prolonged combat to be unlikely.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, if you do that once, the players will simply refuse to roll initiative the next time to discuss strategy.

Players don't get to refuse to roll initiative in my game. In the mind boggling case of that happening, I'd have the PC flat footed until such time as they deigned to join the game.

This is a well-known problem in our game group and discussion typically only ends because one player's eventually fed up and just acts to get things moving again. Sometimes it also helps to remind the players that usually their best plans don't survive first contact with the enemies...

Don't allow players to bully the game's referee. It's not the responsibility of a player to get the game moving. GM's have to take that heat on themselves the minute that they see a player becoming frustrated regarding the slow pace. If this fosters a party/GM antagonism, that's better that player versus player antagonism. At least they are trying to beat you, not quibbling with each other.

In 3e even epic high-level battles rarely took more than 3 or 4 combat rounds, but each of these rounds took incredibly long to complete. Often the first turn would already be decisive: The side that first manages to get through with their Mass Dispel had a significant advantage, especially if they could prevent their opposition from doing the same. Instant death effects were also quite prevalent, causing prolonged combat to be unlikely.

Stock 3e does have some problems, although what you describe is equally true of 1e and 2e as well. I used to joke that the initiative roll was the midpoint of high level 1e combat, as it would rarely go more than 1 1/2 rounds and who won the initiative (to say nothing of surprise!) was often decisive.

 

[amerigoV]

Another thing (occasionally) - put innocents at risk. Players keep talkin, innocents keep dyin.

 

[GMMichael]

Don't allow players to bully the game's referee. It's not the responsibility of a player to get the game moving. GM's have to take that heat on themselves the minute that they see a player becoming frustrated regarding the slow pace.

Hear, hear! The GM has a job to do, people. The entire game world shouldn't stop in time just because PCs want to hold a tactics conversation that should have been done BEFORE the fight.

This problem's extent depends on the nature of the game you're playing. In strict turn-based games, just one player suffers if his turn gets skipped while he's making plans. In simultaneous, time-segment games, you'll have to wait for all players to agree on what their characters are doing before you can play out the scene. So we might be more helpful if we knew what @pdzoch is playing.

 

[pdzoch]

Just a standard 5e D&D game. For a while, I had players who were never ready for their turn. But I was able to solve that by awarding advantage on their attack if they were ready when their turn came up. I only had to offer it for a couple of adventures before the good habits settled in. They were a little disappointed when I placed the advantage if ready on your turn house rule in moritorium. I may offer up a surprise round for the party in the same way if they begin the encounter immediately. Anything to prevent the over-strategising and second guessing at the start of every encounter.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Celebrim]

In simultaneous, time-segment games, you'll have to wait for all players to agree on what their characters are doing before you can play out the scene.

No you don't. You just put collective time pressure on the group. You get an egg timer or something, and everyone has 1 minute to write down their plan of action for the turn. If they don't get it in, they perform whatever defensive action they are eligible for and you simulate the chaos and confusion of combat.

Quite a few games, whether board games or RPGs need to have time pressure enforced. For example, I found that 'Roborally' plays much better under time pressure. A few players griped at first about not having unlimited time to plan, but once they'd gotten used to the idea everyone agreed the game as a whole worked better.

 

[Imaculata]

I think I need to put a timer on my players for their strategy sessions for every encounter. They will debate waaaay too long on how to approach every encounter.

That means they are invested.

I don't mind the players working out how the characters would execute the encounter, but the players will metagame,

Why would this be a problem?

come up with conflicting ideas (and a few weird ones), and devolve into a debate that drags out the strategy session too long.

Again, this means they care, and want to tackle your encounters creatively. As long as they can eventually agree on a plan, I see no problem with this.

My solution recently is to grow the encounter the longer they debated (added an additional monster to the encounter).

That sounds terrible to me. You are punishing them for discussing a strategy, and not hurrying up with their turns. Why the rush? I would allow them to take as much time as they like, and while they discuss a strategy, time is frozen.

The entire game world shouldn't stop in time just because PCs want to hold a tactics conversation that should have been done BEFORE the fight.

A good argument could be made for this approach. If for example a DM notices some players are getting bored or frustrated by the constant disruption of the combat by overly long discussions, he has a responsibility to get things moving along (in my opinion). You could simply remind the players that they have only a small amount of time to relay very basic information to each other. A round of combat is roughly only a few seconds long. Not enough time for long discussion, but just enough to shout some basic instructions at people as a free action.

Just inform them that they do not have enough time for a long discussion of tactics, and tell them that they should have agreed on a plan BEFORE the battle.

Alternatively, allow as much time as they want, but be involved as a DM. Provide ideas and information that helps speed along their discussion. Just keep it interesting, and try to get all the players involved. Make sure you put a stop to the really stupid absurd plans, if they defy all logic and reason, by reminding them early on why that would not work, or by suggesting what other (more sensible) approach they could try to achieve the same result.

As a DM I prefer to tell my players what their options are, rather than to tell them what they can't do.