D&D 5E Streams or podcasts where the groups complete a "standard adventuring day" in a 4 hour session?

[SuperTD]

Keep Things Moving. We do this by saying "Yes, and..." to our fellow players. When a reasonable idea is proposed, we accept it ("Yes...") and add to it ("and..."). We don't shut down other people's ideas or try to tell other people how to play their characters unless they ask for help. It's discouraging to others and slows the game down.

How do your groups typically determine what constitutes a "reasonable" plan? No plan is ever perfect, and any plan can have flaws pointed out in it. I've been in groups which end up going back and forth on plans for way too long, as each time something is suggested another player will point out a flaw. Where do you drawn the line between a fundamentally broken plan, and a functional plan if everyone has a different threshold in mind where a plan's possible failings become an acceptable risk?

 

[iserith]

How do your groups typically determine what constitutes a "reasonable" plan? No plan is ever perfect, and any plan can have flaws pointed out in it. I've been in groups which end up going back and forth on plans for way too long, as each time something is suggested another player will point out a flaw. Where do you drawn the line between a fundamentally broken plan, and a functional plan if everyone has a different threshold in mind where a plan's possible failings become an acceptable risk?

That's up to the players to work out. But the idea here is that by adding to the plan, you make it a little better, mitigate some inherent risk, or prepare for a contingency. What you don't do is say "No" directly or indirectly by proposing some other idea in opposition to it. That just creates a situation where players have to defend their ideas and debate things with very little incentive to compromise. This tool allows the group to latch onto a plan early and make it better with everyone's ideas. Then once everyone has had their say, they execute.

 

[Charlaquin]

How do your groups typically determine what constitutes a "reasonable" plan? No plan is ever perfect, and any plan can have flaws pointed out in it. I've been in groups which end up going back and forth on plans for way too long, as each time something is suggested another player will point out a flaw. Where do you drawn the line between a fundamentally broken plan, and a functional plan if everyone has a different threshold in mind where a plan's possible failings become an acceptable risk?

I’m pretty sure the whole point of that table rule of Iserith’s is to prevent this exact problem. Rather than poking holes in a plan and shutting it down, you accept the plan, and if you perceive a weakness in it, add to it to help cover that weakness. A plan is only unreasonable if it obviously has little to no chance of success, and generally if it’s obviously bad enough to qualify as unreasonable, the other player wouldn’t have suggested it in the first place,

 

[Scott Christian]

Again, they get a few seconds to declare their action after I tell the player 'it's now your turn' or they take the Dodge action and their turn ends.

I like to keep my combats fast, chaotic and snappy. It has the added benefit of keeping players focused on the action when it's not their turns.

I really like this, and have applied it at times. But for every combat it got tedious. This was especially true for newer players or players playing a new class. But I like it and will start reimplementing it again once I see your take. I'll try to imitate.

 

[iserith]

I have found that appealing to self-interest is the best way to get players onboard with acting on their turn in an expedient manner. I ask them if they like it when their turn comes around faster. "Yes" is always the answer. So I tell them that the way to do this is to act immediately on their turn and resolve quickly with the understanding that everyone else, equally motivated by self-interest, will be doing the same.

The other thing we suggest to players is that if their turn does come around and they're paralyzed with indecision, they ask what they should do and take the first suggestion that comes up on the assumption that nobody's going to give them a suggestion so bad that it ultimately hurts the team and that taking this suggestion is better than delaying the game further.

 

[Azuresun]

So can anyone point to any games I can watch that actually get through a recommended standard adventuring day (6-8 encounters, plus all three pillars) in a single session of around 4 hours?

Just a note that's not what the DMG says, though it's often what it gets simplified down to on the internet.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Just a note that's not what the DMG says, though it's often what it gets simplified down to on the internet.

I don't think the DMG says anything about how long a "typical adventuring day" should last in terms of real world time.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Just a note that's not what the DMG says, though it's often what it gets simplified down to on the internet.

True. But there is a close correlation between how many typical adventuring days worth of experience you would need to level and how many play sessions we are told you would need to level, and I think the four hour standard for a session has been expressed by the designers at some point. In other words, yes you have to string some things together, but the math does more or less add up and accord with what the folks who wrote the core rulebooks intended.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I'd love to see a fast-flowing combat. My group usually has 4h sessions (real game sessions, we socialize/eat before we start). Let's say 3h and a half to be sure. We have an average of one violent encounter per session (sometimes two, very rarely three or it's just very short fight that could be narrated away like a group of PCs overpowering a sentinel) and sometimes (10-15% of the time) none. Social encounters, planning and theorizing can fill an evening (and my players aren't throwing dice at me, so I guess I am doing well...). Sometimes I would like a faster face (like when I expect the session to end with a fight but it's too late to start one...) because fights take much longer than they should (theater of the mind only). Sometimes it's because we add flourish and description, sometimes it's just because my players are wondering what they will do in the round (let's flip my spellbook... I hate that but I don't think they would tolerate the "ok, you take a Dodge action while assessing the situation" solution that was proposed in the thread above, despite it being very good) but I can't seem to end a fight in less than one hour...

 

[SkidAce]

I don't think the DMG says anything about how long a "typical adventuring day" should last in terms of real world time.

About a day.