D&D 5E Some Tips for Smoother, Faster Play

[Benjamin Olson]

The biggest issue I've seen that disrupts smooth play is out of character jokes/discussions/etc. While this is a social activity, it's far too easy for many (myself included) to go off on tangents unrelated to the game itself.

Which may well be one of the most enjoyable parts for some people and/or make for a better group dynamic on the whole. It also might be giving the DM time to make on-the-fly preparations and adjustments. Just make sure its not a few people having extended off topic conversations while everyone else politely waits.

 

[iserith]

The rather large assumption this makes - and you even point it out - is that everyone's idea of 'fun' is just about always the same.

News flash: it isn't; and even a single person's idea of what's 'fun' might change from one session to the next depending on mood, or from one year to the next depending on whatever.

My experience has been that not everyone finds just one thing fun - it's a range of things. My goal is to be in a group that shares an interest in that range. Anyone else can go find another game that better suits them.

Which merely tells me you're forcing the definition of what's relevant and what isn't on to your players, and then making them agree. You're also in some ways telling players how to play their characters; all in the interest of saving time which is, in the end, a nigh-boundless resource provided you're healthy and not ancient.

Big. Red. Flags.

Also, what happens if the reason Tom's character doesn't want to go on an adventure is because he's heard of another adventure he'd rather do instead?
Completely agree with these two; though I've run into all kinds of trouble in the past (both as player and DM) in situations where the DM describes something and the player from that description imagines something different, even after supposedly-clarifying questions. Never ends well.

I can't force anything on anyone. We all agree what we want to spend our time on in the game and then we do that. To echo @Charlaquin's sentiment, we get 4,000 Friday's on this earth if we're lucky. I'm not going to waste them on stuff I don't like, if I can avoid it.

As for Tom, if there are multiple adventures to choose from in a given time, then that represents a decision the party has to make and I'll direct you to my advice on "Keep Things Moving," which I assume you also hate.

It's a win if you want nothing but groupthink rather than individualism, both at the table and PC level; and pretty much soft-bans chaotics both as players and PCs. Another big red flag.

It's also a win for the first person to suggest an idea - which while being good for promoting quick thinking is bad if the idea suggested simply isn't worth considering; as everyone's then stuck with it.

And the barbarian can still charge in regardless, she just has to be quick about it before anyone says anything.

This is quite different from the completely unacceptable practice of telling other players how to play their characters.

It's also a loss to those who maybe don't think (or speak up) quite as fast but whose idea or plan would in the end be better. They're forced to say "Yes, and..." and go along with an inferior idea where what they really want to say is "Yes, or...".

It's thinking on both the group AND individual level. The group quickly agrees on a general goal because that's best for the group to get a move on and the players add their individual flourishes by fine-tuning it with their ideas in ways that don't negate other people's ideas. Each person is cognizant of spotlight time (and the DM can redirect anyway) and so they informally make sure everyone has a shot at being the first at bat to guide the group with the initial idea.

You may run circles around other groups in terms of quantity of content, but quality? That'd be in the eye of the beholder, I think, and what might be quality for you could be anything but for someone else. Not to say your games aren't good for your crew; I'm sure they are, but to say be wary of extrapolating that experience too far on to others.

I'm pretty confident that my games have a broad appeal based on experience in running pickup games with hundreds of players. I'd at least be willing to put good money on any random person showing up to my game and having a blast.

My own tips for smoother faster play mostly come from the DM side:

• make your descriptions concise, i.e. give the same info you'd have given before but don't use ten words where two will do. (this is true even if using a published module with boxed text, as the boxed text sometimes gets too flowery for its own good!)
• be ready and willing to make stuff up if you're asked a question that you haven't a prepped answer for (for me, I often find myself having to dream up names on the spot for NPCs I mistakenly thought would be irrelevant).
• be ready to start on time even if the players aren't (my lot often arrive late and leave later, it;s just how they are).

I agree with all of these. The tardiness though. That would really bother me. If someone is late, we usually just start without them and they can jump in when they get there.

 

[iserith]

And I still maintain that "I want to use my acrobatics proficiency to swing on the chandelier and smash out the window to escape the town guard raiding the tavern" is mor efficient and preserves player agency better than "I want to swing on the chandelier and smash out the window to escape" "Okay make a strength (athletics) check" "But I'm proficient in acrobatics" is.

So what you're doing here is admitting that you can't think of any other way for a player to describe that action.

That's a bold strategy.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yeah, I’ve played in 2 or 3 of Iserith’s games in the (8?) years I’ve known him. I rarely play online. But I 100% vouch for his claims as to quality. His sessions are (nearly) as good as mine!

But in terms of content, pacing, and fun - Iserith is on the mark and not exaggerating. I’ve never felt subjected to group-think or otherwise stifled and (despite my own objections to Yes, And playstyles that echo Lanefan’s points) it simply wasn’t the case that the first player to talk dominated all courses of action.

The imagined pitfalls and red flags didn’t show, in the handful of games I played. They were through and through excellent experiences. Well-crafted, well-run, and good fun.

Which suggests to me that instead of just telling @iserith the reasons his approach won’t work, it might be more productive to ask questions.

 

[Reynard]

So what you're doing here is admitting that you can't think of any other way for a player to describe that action.

That's a bold strategy.

And that's the kind of dismissive, superior response I was hoping just in the eye of the beholder but is apparently just your MO.

To be clear: there is nothing to be gained by not allowing or even encouraging players to tell you what they want to accomplish both in the fiction and mechanically and your not only instance to the contrary but outright hostility to any suggestion otherwise out you quite certainly as someone who believes they have cracked the code and everyone else is at best lost in the wilderness.

Your method works for you. Great. Stop being so insufferable to anyone who thinks differently.

 

[TwoSix]

Although not explicitly stated, I feel like @iserith's games are more plot focused, and fairly light on in-character dialogue, especially inter-PC dialogue. Would I be correct in that assumption?

 

[iserith]

And that's the kind of dismissive, superior response I was hoping just in the eye of the beholder but is apparently just your MO.

To be clear: there is nothing to be gained by not allowing or even encouraging players to tell you what they want to accomplish both in the fiction and mechanically and your not only instance to the contrary but outright hostility to any suggestion otherwise out you quite certainly as someone who believes they have cracked the code and everyone else is at best lost in the wilderness.

Your method works for you. Great. Stop being so insufferable to anyone who thinks differently.

You will note that I pointed out, comedically (or so I thought), the problem with your argument because you omitted any description that might have resulted in the DM's call for a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check in order to try to make a point in a discussion from another thread. What I didn't do is attack you as you've just done to me. We disagree on how best to play D&D 5e. It doesn't need to be personal.

 

[iserith]

Although not explicitly stated, I feel like @iserith's games are more plot focused, and fairly light on in-character dialogue, especially inter-PC dialogue. Would I be correct in that assumption?

My response really depends on what you mean by "plot-focused" and "fairly light" and whether you're referring to my regular campaigns or the many one-shots I run. But in general I don't prefer plot-based games (though I sometimes run them). I'm more of a fan of location-based games. I wouldn't say my games are light on in-character dialogue. It may just be distributed differently. Typically it's in the context of Getting Stuff Done rather than as lengthy transition scenes between challenges as I see in some games (particularly streamed games).

 

[Lanefan]

My experience has been that not everyone finds just one thing fun - it's a range of things. My goal is to be in a group that shares an interest in that range. Anyone else can go find another game that better suits them.

Where I guess I find it more interesting to have a group where that range is very wide, in order to promote in-character variety and differing viewpoints.

I can't force anything on anyone. We all agree what we want to spend our time on in the game and then we do that. To echo @Charlaquin's sentiment, we get 4,000 Friday's on this earth if we're lucky. I'm not going to waste them on stuff I don't like, if I can avoid it.

If I've got 4000 Friday evenings to run a campaign, having a few of them disappear in character discussion is trivial.

As for Tom, if there are multiple adventures to choose from in a given time, then that represents a decision the party has to make and I'll direct you to my advice on "Keep Things Moving," which I assume you also hate.

Is that the "Yes, and..." piece? If so, my question is this: how can a party ever come to the point of having to make a decision if opposing points of view cannot be put forward?

Keep in mind I'm reading your words as written, as that's all I have to go by, and what actually happens in play may be (and probably is) more relaxed. But as written, if for example someone in the party opens conversation with "I've heard about this place called the Sunless Citadel, let's go check it out", that commits the party right there to going to Sunless Citadel no matter what - nobody can oppose it. Tom can't say "Hey, what about this Tegal Manor place they mentioned down at the Mercenaries' Guild; that one caught my interest" becasue if he does, that's not a "Yes, and..." it's at best a "Yes, or...".

It's thinking on both the group AND individual level. The group quickly agrees on a general goal because that's best for the group to get a move on and the players add their individual flourishes by fine-tuning it with their ideas in ways that don't negate other people's ideas.

How does this work if (when!) someone comes up with a flat-out bad idea, is my question.

Each person is cognizant of spotlight time (and the DM can redirect anyway) and so they informally make sure everyone has a shot at being the first at bat to guide the group with the initial idea.

Even though you say it's informal, that's still far more formal than I ever imagine interatcions with friends as being.

I'm pretty confident that my games have a broad appeal based on experience in running pickup games with hundreds of players. I'd at least be willing to put good money on any random person showing up to my game and having a blast.

As you touched on already, there's a big difference between pickup/one-shot/convention games and long-term home games.

My discussion here is completely concerned with the latter, that are not usually time-limited in any hard and fast sense.

I agree with all of these. The tardiness though. That would really bother me. If someone is late, we usually just start without them and they can jump in when they get there.

Our lot - well, most of us anyway - have at best a rather vague idea of what "on time" means. You set 7:30 as a start time, hope anybody shows up by 8, and hope they've got the socializing and snacks-drinks preparation out of the way by 8:30...

 

[Xenonnonex]

For in person games. Work on your goddamn personal hygiene. Goddamn take a shower and put on deodorant. Goddamn brush your teeth. The amount of times my senses were assaulted in convention games was staggering. Goddamn think of other people.

Roll attack and damage dice in the same roll. Saves time.