Encounter Strategy Sessions

[TalenOfTheKeep]

Another thing to consider is encourage the players to have a standard response action. In our campaign, chance encounters usually go like this:
Crazy barbarian charges in and starts killing things
Fighter support types follow in and keep the crazy barbarian from getting killed
Archers (Ranged attack types) start picking off leaders / casters / etc.
Wizard takes out bunched enemies
Cleric cries silently in the corner before wading in and fixing everyone.

We don't need to talk about it, it just happens that way

 

[Jhaelen]

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.

Some, but not all. I agree about Robo-Rally. But try to enforce time limit in a game like Mage Knight!

Talking about RPGs, whether a time limit works or not will depend on the group. For a beer & pretzl game, I wouldn't be worried. But I've played in games that prefer a grittier approach and all encounters tend to be deadly unless everyone's playing at their best. Recalling our D&D 3E sessions, in many encounters, if one or two players would have been forced to resort to a default defensive action, we'd have had a guaranteed TPK on our hands. It would have been impossible to successfully conclude a long-going high-level campaign under such conditions.

I suppose it's a matter of personal preferences, but 'simulating the chaos and confusion of combat' by putting the players under strict time pressure isn't my idea of fun. What may work for some kinds of board-games doesn't necessarily work for a ten-year RPG campaign.

 

[Celebrim]

Some, but not all. I agree about Robo-Rally. But try to enforce time limit in a game like Mage Knight!

Try enforcing a time limit in a really deep game like Chess! Oh wait.

If you can play Chess and Blood Bowl under time pressure, you should be able to play Mage Knight.

Talking about RPGs, whether a time limit works or not will depend on the group.

This is probably the most generic thing you can say about an RPG. After considering the options carefully, whatever the group is happy with is what they should do. If everyone is having fun, there is no problem. Once again, let me stress that my comments are intended to fix a problem, namely that play is dragging due to an excess of planning and debate (and probably no small amount of dithering), and as a result one or more players at the table are frustrated and no longer fully enjoying the game. If in fact everyone is happy, there isn't a pressing need to implement any of my suggestions, and naturally if everyone is happy that's a sufficient reason to reject any of these suggestions.

That said...

But I've played in games that prefer a grittier approach and all encounters tend to be deadly unless everyone's playing at their best. Recalling our D&D 3E sessions, in many encounters, if one or two players would have been forced to resort to a default defensive action, we'd have had a guaranteed TPK on our hands. It would have been impossible to successfully conclude a long-going high-level campaign under such conditions.

I suppose it's a matter of personal preferences, but 'simulating the chaos and confusion of combat' by putting the players under strict time pressure isn't my idea of fun. What may work for some kinds of board-games doesn't necessarily work for a ten-year RPG campaign.

If you are in a ten year old RPG campaign which features a lot of tactics and that game has reached high level, there is literally no excuse for playing slowly. You've got highly experienced players who should at this point be skillful, practiced, and knowledgeable of the game and how to play their characters. You should by this point have a team of players capable of playing under tournament conditions, where handling time pressure and quick elegant play is essential for success. If play is going slow at that point, it's almost certainly poor habits (like not paying attention when it isn't your turn, not analyzing the board, relying on other players to play your character, tactical success via metagaming the DM to get feedback, and so forth) and not the inability to play more quickly. I'm reminded of playing Settlers of Cataan with a particular player who would spend literally 5 or 6 minutes offering completely ludicrous trades, badgering people to take trades, reoffering trades that had already been refused, trying to craft 3 or 4 card supertrades and various other dysfunctional behavior. The problem wasn't a lack of intelligence. The problem was a lack of willingness to accept the game state and deal with it. If the whole table loves this sort of thing, and geeks out on mentally trying out a dozen plans before settling on what they want to do this round, then ok, have fun. But the idea that players with 10 years experience actually need minutes of time on their turn to come up with an action to take strikes me as ridiculous.

 

[GMMichael]

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

Agreed. But moving the game along isn't telling them what they can't do, it's keeping pace and tone. The GM has a duty to entertain, and allowing combat to become tediously slow isn't entertaining.

As a player, I'll try to urge the GM along by announcing what I'm doing, regardless of party indecision. Sometimes the GM gets the hint. As GM, it doesn't hurt to provide a scene where the PCs are encouraged to come up with a battle plan. Because, well, it's pretty common for combatants to have some type of training.

 

[Imaculata]

Agreed. But moving the game along isn't telling them what they can't do, it's keeping pace and tone. The GM has a duty to entertain, and allowing combat to become tediously slow isn't entertaining.

I agree on that as well. But my question would be, why would it be boring for the players to discuss tactics?
Just speaking from personal experience, some of the best sessions in my group have been moments where they discussed at great length their strategy.

But I made sure as a DM to keep the dialogue moving forwards. I made sure they didn't go around in circles, and provided them with reminders of what their characters knew, and with details that may be relevant to their discussion.

As GM, it doesn't hurt to provide a scene where the PCs are encouraged to come up with a battle plan. Because, well, it's pretty common for combatants to have some type of training.

I like to give my players the time to make a battle plan, without them being pushed to "get on with it". My only concern, is that all players feel engaged in the discussion. I don't want two players going around in circles, while a third eyes his phone. So as soon as I feel that their attention is starting to waver, I throw in something to draw them back in.

 

[Celebrim]

I agree on that as well. But my question would be, why would it be boring for the players to discuss tactics?
Just speaking from personal experience, some of the best sessions in my group have been moments where they discussed at great length their strategy.

It's not, and I don't think DMMike said it was. Although I'm all for moving things along, if it is a group that really wants to discuss strategy, let them do so. As I said in my original response: "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."

...as I feel that their attention is starting to waver, I throw in something to draw them back in.

Then we are all actually in agreement, I think.

Beyond pacing, one reason to avoid letting groups engage in too much planning during a combat (rather than prior to combat), is that too often mid-combat planning isn't collaborative, but one dominate personality trying to play all the characters to his satisfaction. Forcing in combat planning to be in game, helps protect the players with less boisterous personalities from being bullied.

 

[Jhaelen]

Try enforcing a time limit in a really deep game like Chess! Oh wait.

If you can play Chess and Blood Bowl under time pressure, you should be able to play Mage Knight.

Having played chess in a tournament situation, I've played games that I only won because of the time limit, i.e. against players that were clearly more skilled than me. Is that really a situation that you consider desirable?

Imho, it's just a barely acceptable compromise to avoid tournaments from taking forever. And there's a reason that in chess tournaments you're not just playing a single match to decide on the outcome.
It's also common for several other games to lift the time limit for the final.

In other words: the situation just isn't comparable.

And in a high level D&D game (at least in 3e) there's _a lot_ more going on than in a game of chess, which has comparably really simple rules. Since you mentioned the players in your campaign reached level 9, I have to wonder if you have actually ever experienced the kind of high-level gameplay I'm talking about. Before level 12-13 you won't even notice any problems in 3e. It's when powers that are the equivalent of 7th to 9th spells, i.e. powers that literally alter reality become commonplace that encounters become almost impossible to manage (or prepare for). Relying on a rote strategy when everything can happen is a sure road to disaster. Of course there was the extremely popular 'scry-buff-teleport' routine. But what if that approach doesn't work?

But I already realized after reading your first post in this thread, that we will never agree on this. I just felt it was important to document a different view; it's not as simple as you'd like to make it appear.

 

[Imaculata]

Beyond pacing, one reason to avoid letting groups engage in too much planning during a combat (rather than prior to combat), is that too often mid-combat planning isn't collaborative, but one dominate personality trying to play all the characters to his satisfaction. Forcing in combat planning to be in game, helps protect the players with less boisterous personalities from being bullied.

I agree, but I think that is an issue that extends way beyond just the current topic. I think this sort of bullying is something that DM's need to be wary of in general. Players can very easily (often unintentionally) dominate the table. And especially if this is during long strategic planning, this becomes very tedious for those that feel sidelined.

I try to always be watchful for players that are less vocal and active, and try to involve them when the more active players push them to the side line. There are very subtle ways to do this.

For example, a while ago my players were planning a big battle. This was pre-battle mind you, not during the battle. One of the players in my group is a new role player, and is less vocal during play. So when the other players loudly start dominating the table, and discussing tactics, he can easily end up being ignored. And its hard to get a word in once they get going.

So what I did was have an npc (his love interest) approach him, and ask him "if he thinks this plan will work". She then shared some ideas of her own, which the less vocal player could then bring to the table. It was kind of like how a director cuts to a different character during a movie, to show his side of the story. I allowed the other players to rattle on, while giving him something to pull him into the scene.

 

[GMMichael]

XP to Imaculata for involving the less-vocal players.

For the record, I'm perfectly happy with players having/making a battle plan, and discussion of it during combat is still better than discussion after the battle (since lives can be at stake). What I'm not okay with is letting indecisive players drain the excitement out of combat by slowing it down to open forum (online forum?) speed. You might enjoy the scene and sequence by talking about it, but I doubt your heart will be racing unless there's some time pressure on you.

For the 5e players in here, I'll recommend re-introducing the Delay action from 3e. This will let the GM skip an indecisive player to keep a battle going, and when that player finally decides what he wants to do, he can begin his turn at a new initiative count without losing his turn for that round.

For the non-5e players, well, I doubt you're having these problems...