D&D combats really don't have to take a long time to resolve
- Thread starter Quasqueton
- Start date
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Quasqueton said:
I'd like to take the opportunity to remind you of the rules - I'm thinking specifically of this one:
Keep it civil: Don't engage in personal attacks, name-calling, or blanket generalizations in your discussions. Say how you feel or what you think, but be careful about ascribing motives to the actions of others or telling others how they "should" think. People seeking to engage and discuss will find themselves asking questions, seeking clarifications, and describing their own opinion. People seeking to "win an argument" sometimes end up taking cheap shots, calling people names, and generally trying to indimidate others. My advice: don't try to win.
Blanket generalisations such as the one you make here (and later on in the thread) are not conducive to good discussions. You are making a blanket generalisation and telling others how they 'should' think.
I look forward to your threads, since you often start interesting discussions (I don't know where you get all your ideas from!) I hope you take this suggestion in the spirit it is intended.
Cheers
Ogrork the Mighty
Explorer
It's important to distinguish between giving players 6 seconds to decide what to do vs. how much time it takes them to actually determine the results. I don't have a problem with the former, but I have a problem with the latter if someone is expected to finish their actions in under 30 seconds...
Henry
Autoexreginated
GlassJaw said:
I do this too, with one extra "subtle" visual cue: If someone has taken over roughly 15 seconds, I hold my outstretched hand up, and count off with my fingers, pinky to thumb: 5 -- 4 -- 3 -- 2 -- 1 and then they delay. (Actually, in my group, you lose your turn, effectively delaying till next round.) The visual countdown is often enough to spark the player to do something. Players have to realize that not every action is going to be perfectly illustrated, after all, neither are the villains' actions. Furthermore, the more practice a player gets, the better they get at pre-deciding actions before it gets to the "countdown" stage.
Quasqueton said:
Yeah - for NPCs, much less than a minute. I could probably do 12 NPCs in about 3-4 minutes. AIR a Fighter player would take around a minute at most, but spellcaster PCs would be easily 6 minutes each, so a player with Wizard PC & Cleric cohort (a very common combination) would take 12 minutes or so, sometimes more. Ideally the combat would be an hour (still a long time IMO), but often longer, I remember a battle with ca 30 lowish-level Duergar took up nearly the entire game session once.
Edit: You say it's a helluva lot of combatants, but in 1e/2e that would have been quite normal, and easy to handle.
FreeTheSlaves
Adventurer
I just recently had the pleasure to observe a group of language teachers in their annual week of strategic planning & one session was devoted to _qualifying_ statements with the appropriate sense of certainty. What one person observed as an overbearing tone was a post that did not have the correct level of qualifying.
If you make an absolutely certain statement, you are occupying a higher position to the reader and not engaging them in a discussion. This is fine if you are stating applicable facts but not endearing for discourse.
****
We use most of the tricks out there to speed up combat to a swift level which still allows reasonable thought.
What I do not tolerate is players not knowing their character's powers; I have stated that I can not handle this needless slowdown & my response is to not allow the level-up process until the player has demonstrated that they can run their character with acceptable efficiency. This is related to a too swift advancement & I in turn have examined my XP awarding practice to space a good 3-4 sessions before advancement.
If you make an absolutely certain statement, you are occupying a higher position to the reader and not engaging them in a discussion. This is fine if you are stating applicable facts but not endearing for discourse.
****
We use most of the tricks out there to speed up combat to a swift level which still allows reasonable thought.
What I do not tolerate is players not knowing their character's powers; I have stated that I can not handle this needless slowdown & my response is to not allow the level-up process until the player has demonstrated that they can run their character with acceptable efficiency. This is related to a too swift advancement & I in turn have examined my XP awarding practice to space a good 3-4 sessions before advancement.
Quasqueton
First Post
In my experience with AD&D1-2, this would have been a lot of combatants (especially on the good guys' side) even then. And given the same number of combatants, of the same classes, how would AD&D1-2 have been easier to handle?
Why is this?
Quasqueton
Here's my 3 cents:
The good ideas I've seen (and reseen, this is not a new topic):
use a battlemat, it speeds up describing what is happening, and helps people stay focussed
if you take too long to decide, delay action or Full Defense is your action (safest means of lose a turn)
no telling other players what to do on their turn
spellcasters must have the books/print-outs with their spells
keep headcount low, makes for faster turns
Some questions for quas since he's been clocking things:
how long does a typical player's turn (1 person, start to finish) take?
hoiw long for fighters, wizards, etc? What's the differences between classes.
My own observations:
in virtually all games (of any kind), there is a tolerance for how long a round should take. Basically, how long am I willing to wait before it is my turn again. In simple games, it equates to about 4 "actions" Meaning, most people are tolerant for 4 other people to do something, before their turn. Consider a simple card game. Draw 1 play 1. Most people are OK at waiting for 4 other people to do their turn in this manner, before their own turn. Once you had another player, the threshold is reached and people become less patient and have less fun. The game is percieved to be too slow. This is why most games are for 6 people or less. Games that allow for more, and are played with more are usually considered too slow, so just because a game is designed for 8 players, doesn't mean it will be fun with 8 players.
Another quirk of the 3e design, which people touch upon is Attacks of Opportunity. From a mechanical standpoint, they were a good idea. There were always situations, running away, running past some one, where it seemed like the other guy should get a free hit against you. AoO codified that. In doing so, it also caused the problem. Now, players do everything in their power to avoid triggering an AoO. If this were fiction, characters would rush to and fro, get nicked and go on with being heroic. It's hard to get people to take their hits and keep on being heroic. Perhaps if an AoO didin't have the same attack bonus or damage level as a normal attack. If it hurt less or was less likely to hit than a normal attack, people might be willing to take the risk and not worry so much about it.
Janx
The good ideas I've seen (and reseen, this is not a new topic):
use a battlemat, it speeds up describing what is happening, and helps people stay focussed
if you take too long to decide, delay action or Full Defense is your action (safest means of lose a turn)
no telling other players what to do on their turn
spellcasters must have the books/print-outs with their spells
keep headcount low, makes for faster turns
Some questions for quas since he's been clocking things:
how long does a typical player's turn (1 person, start to finish) take?
hoiw long for fighters, wizards, etc? What's the differences between classes.
My own observations:
in virtually all games (of any kind), there is a tolerance for how long a round should take. Basically, how long am I willing to wait before it is my turn again. In simple games, it equates to about 4 "actions" Meaning, most people are tolerant for 4 other people to do something, before their turn. Consider a simple card game. Draw 1 play 1. Most people are OK at waiting for 4 other people to do their turn in this manner, before their own turn. Once you had another player, the threshold is reached and people become less patient and have less fun. The game is percieved to be too slow. This is why most games are for 6 people or less. Games that allow for more, and are played with more are usually considered too slow, so just because a game is designed for 8 players, doesn't mean it will be fun with 8 players.
Another quirk of the 3e design, which people touch upon is Attacks of Opportunity. From a mechanical standpoint, they were a good idea. There were always situations, running away, running past some one, where it seemed like the other guy should get a free hit against you. AoO codified that. In doing so, it also caused the problem. Now, players do everything in their power to avoid triggering an AoO. If this were fiction, characters would rush to and fro, get nicked and go on with being heroic. It's hard to get people to take their hits and keep on being heroic. Perhaps if an AoO didin't have the same attack bonus or damage level as a normal attack. If it hurt less or was less likely to hit than a normal attack, people might be willing to take the risk and not worry so much about it.
Janx
Quasqueton
First Post
I currently have 4 Players. (I had 6 when I started tracking the time, so I have data for both situations.)
Each Player takes about 20-30 seconds, on average, from the moment I call their character's name to the moment I call the next character's name. This includes telling me and everyone what their action is and rolling the dice to determine the outcome. I do not enforce this time with a stopwatch or anything like that. This is just how long they naturally take. [Stop what you are doing right now and look at your watch for 30 seconds.]
Occasionally a Player's turn ends up taking 2 minutes -- they dropped their die and we all have to look in the carpet for it, they make some out of character comment about the action going on and everyone rolls around laughing, they ask an uncommon rule question and we get an answer, etc. And then sometimes it only takes them 6 seconds -- "I attack again. <roll> 16 and 12. I missed. I'm done."
My Players pay attention to the battle as it happens, and most of the time they've already decided what they are going to do by the time I call for their action. No one is rushed or hurried in their decision or action. There is no mad dash for speed.
I, as the DM, take anywhere from 30 seconds to 3 minutes, depending on how many bad guys are in the battle. 1 troll fighter making his attacks takes 30 seconds, but the troll fighter with a wizard BBEG, a cleric henchman, a dozen goblin warriors, and half a dozen wolves takes longer.
The biggest time waste in other games I've seen and played in (like the one described in my opening post) is how every PC action is discussed in committee. And it gets especially frustrating when a PC actually has no really useful action to make, but he considers *every* possible option so that he doesn't "waste" his action. My Players aren't afraid to delay and ready actions when they've nothing meaningful to do.
Things like AoOs don't seem to bother my Players. They suck them up when they provoke them, and they don't take much time considering each square of movement. And actually, they rarely provoke AoO. I The 5' step eliminates half or more of the AoO situations. I'd say there is an AoO once in 4 battles.
Our battles last 3-4 rounds on average. That's around 20 minutes. Ironically, the shorter battles seem to take longer per round than the longer battles. After a few rounds, everyone is into the roll of the battle and a round may only last 2 minutes total. We've had grand/epic 20-round combats last 1 hour (~3 minutes per round). That's 1 hour of action-packed excitement.
If we wanted to play rush-battle we could go even faster. But we're comfortable with the pace as it is. What amazes me are those players who see D&D combat taking too long, and rather than look at how they are playing, they just blame the rules system.
Quasqueton
kigmatzomat
Legend
My players are wary of AoOs not so much from the damage as the special effects. At 18th level there are plenty of feats and abilities that could make movement-induced AoOs dealbreakers. (Stand Still, Large & In Charge, Opportunist, Trip, etc) By the same token, they often have enough movement, tumble, and feats to make it a worthy gamble. Heck, the monk "cheats" by using his mind-numbing jump skill to leap over opponents as part of his action.
As a DM, my caster NPCs take longer per action than physical combatants b/c I have to refocus on the spell list, recent events, and any mods to other NPCs from buff spells. Conversely, my caster players generally take less time since their AE spells are faster to roll than the fighters' attack/damage or the buff spells put the load on the other players.
Of course, they know they can't dither on their round either.
My players who have absolutely no idea what they are going to do often take the Full Defense option or hold action to follow the rest of the party.
As a DM, my caster NPCs take longer per action than physical combatants b/c I have to refocus on the spell list, recent events, and any mods to other NPCs from buff spells. Conversely, my caster players generally take less time since their AE spells are faster to roll than the fighters' attack/damage or the buff spells put the load on the other players.
Of course, they know they can't dither on their round either.
My players who have absolutely no idea what they are going to do often take the Full Defense option or hold action to follow the rest of the party.
