Declaration phase in 3.x

[airwalkrr]

The only extra thing we were using was a rule that declarations were done in order from LOWER to higher initiative, so that those characters who rolled a high initiative had the further advantage of knowing what every other PC of lower Init was going to do.

Actions were then resolved from highest to lowest, as normal.

I disagree with this. It doesn't make very much sense from a logistics perspective and I can see many places where it could throw game balance out of whack. Presumably the rationale behind initiative lies in the fact that the character with the highest initiative had the quickest reaction. Therefore, it would stand to reason that this character would be reacting before anyone else had begun their actions. Consequently, it makes no sense to give this character foresight about what other characters are going to do AFTER he has already chosen his course of action. Conversely, it seems that it would make more sense if the character with the highest initiative declared his action first and the character with the lowest initiative declared his action last. The character with the lowest initiative wouldn't have much hope of interrupting a character with a higher initiative so the advantage would not be significant. Hypothetically, if your cleric has low initiative and sees orcs rushing for your allies, it would be a good idea to ready a healing spell, and since you reacted so slowly to the situation that you weren't able to do anything until after you already saw the orcs rushing, it would make sense.

IMC, I first decide (secretly) what the bad guys are going to do, then I ask the players to declare their actions in order of highest initiative modifier to lowest (which is the order they act in since I use party initiative). This means I cannot use information about what the party wishes to do against them and they have no idea what my bad guys are attempting either. It works well believe it or not.

 

[airwalkrr]

Changing actions would be a Move Action... the cost of having to survey the battlefield and figure out what to do.

Now that is a capital idea, sir! *Yoink*

 

[airwalkrr]

Either suspicions will arise about the DM cheating on foes action declaration will undermine player/DM trust or foes action declarations will eliminate surprises. or both intermittently.

Well you certainly are a pessimist. If the players are that distrustful of their DM, they should not be playing with him/her. DMs are entitled to use screens, conceal the stats of bad guys, and do other things of which the players are not aware. He is unable to "cheat." A DM would only change bad guy actions if he had a good reason to do so or if he were adversarial. In the former case, such a thing would be rare and the players would hardly, if ever, notice. In the latter case, there are probably other signs to go along with it and it should be a no-brainer for the players to ask him to step down and let someone else run a campaign for a while. Good DMs (like myself) do not make such adjustments just to beat the players. It is a fruitless task since there is no challenge and good DMs realize that.

 

[kaomera]

I can see the possible trust issues inherent in the declare-then-act system, but honestly if the players don't trust the DM, then the game isn't going to be a whole lot of fun anyway.

I still don't quite see why this system should take any more time than the cyclic initiative system, and in fact my experiences seem to point in the opposite direction. The declaration phase itself should not take longer than it takes for each player to come up with their actions for the turn individually. Further, it forces the player to actually think about what they're going to do, and prevents delays caused by "counting squares", etc. Actually resolving the actions, once they're declared, ought to be faster with declaration than cyclic, in my experience.

However, I haven't actually tried using declarations in 3.x. In part it's because with a few exceptions it's an unfamiliar system to my players, and I'd prefer to stick closer to RAW, especially as we're having other problems, anyway...

I'm still thinking that maybe I should try being a bit more hard-@$$ed about these delays. I don't know, I don't really want to be a jerk, I don't really enjoy it. However, when things get to the point that what should have been a simple combat drags out for three or four hours of game-time, I think I really ought to do something... (But pre-declared actions isn't going to help with math- and record-keeping-related delays, anyway...)

 

[NilesB]

I still don't quite see why this system should take any more time than the cyclic initiative system, and in fact my experiences seem to point in the opposite direction.

The declaration phase takes almost as long as resolving the round declaring as you act, and resolving actions isn't noticeably sped up by having declared actions beforehand.

I've experienced this personally and had this corroborated by many others online (mostly in discusions of how to speed up combat in storyteller).

I wasn't speaking as a pessimist, I was speaking as someone who has been in games where the declaration phase was houseruled away halfway through the campaign. Declaration phases are a bad idea.

 

[kaomera]

The declaration phase takes almost as long as resolving the round declaring as you act, and resolving actions isn't noticeably sped up by having declared actions beforehand.

I accept that this is the fact of your experience, but mine is drastically different. I can totally see players balking at having some control over their characters taken away (perceived and/or actual), but I don't see how it should take longer to play out... Specifically I can't see the declaration phase taking nearly as long as resolving a round of action under any system. I remember being more lenient than was specifically proposed in the rules as written, but nonetheless players need to be prompt with their declarations. Even if a question arises it should not take more than two or three minutes to get a proper response from each player. Compare this to the fifteen or more minutes it can take any of my players to play out their turns. And some of them take much longer.

A declaration phase means that I only have to describe the action once for the entire group. I can make sure that I have their attention ~ and I should, since nothing I'm saying falls into the (false) "does not concern my character" category. The flip side of this, of course, is that I have to keep track of everyone's declarations throughout the turn. I can say that I managed this without too much trouble when I was 10 or 12, but then again that was a different batch of players, with different expectations... They seem more likely to get upset if they think I'm misinterpreting their declarations, rather than just making that much more effort to make them precise the next round. But unless an argument about my interpretation comes up, it still seems like it's going to take less time for me to adjudicate the declarations directly and then call for needed die rolls than to go through the whole process with the player I am assuming pauses (delays) to ask questions, look up rules, ask opinions from the other players, and even for me to ask the player what their character is doing when they (seemingly randomly) start moving their mini or rolling dice, etc. Just having players make a short declaration at the start of their actions could possibly solve many of these problems without requiring turn-by-turn initiative or a party declaration.

Movement, in particular, seems to be a big issue for the group. Now, in AD&D we used a non-standard (attempt at) "simultaneous movement", inspired (IIRC) by Car Wars, Star Fleet Battles, and/or Champions. Rather than have a phased movement system, however, we simply had the DM resolve movement (up to normal maximums) based on declarations and the idea that the action of the round was pretty much happening all at once, rather than "stuttering" with some participants standing still while others moved around them. It was a very imprecise system, and again I can see problems with my current group being immediately willing to adopt it. However, as I've mentioned, my current group has a problem with actually resolving movement in a reasonable amount of time.

Now, my current group is pretty slow, as I've mentioned. Possibly I just don't have the proper perspective right now... And perhaps I'm just looking for an excuse to be more strict about "delay of game". I don't really like the idea of having to be the bad-guy and tell my players that, if they can't decide what they want their character to do, then the character sits there and dies. But I also think maybe I might need to at some point.

 

[The Levitator]

I found a way to both increase combat speed and the feel of chaos by doing 2 things. The first of which may shock some gamers; we play diceless. I use DM Genie to run my games and it has an autoroll feature. I think it's worth mentioning that I've been playing since 1981, and 2 of my players have been gaming longer than me. I mention this because I think we are what some onliners consider grognards in a sense. Our group just decided that the method used to arrive at a number was less important than the decisions made based on the result. For us, it doesn't matter whether a piece of plastic or a computer determines the number, and it increases combat speed immensely. Which led us to our second rule for increasing the speed and chaotic feel of combat. We use realtime rounds to declare actions. You have 6 seconds to begin to declare your action. If you can't decide within that time, you are considered to be dalaying action and you must wait until after the next person to jump back into the round. Since we have a group of pretty experienced players, this only happens about once or twice a session. I know this style of gaming isn't for everyone, but my group won't play any other way.

The added bonus of using DM Genie is that we use several variants which it handles instantaneously ( opposed defense roll, defense bonus, armor as DR, and combat facing, to name a few). It allows me as a DM to focus on story and description, not number crunching. An average combat of 4 players against 4 creatures is usually resolved in about 5 minutes per round (I also use Maptools, a VT, so it takes me a few seconds for each player's actions to move tokens around).

I know that hardcore powergamers will hate this style of play because they can't spend several minutes playing out every single option in their mind and calculate he best statistical action to maximize their chance of success. That's kind of the point. In the heat of battle, even the most seasoned vetrans can make tactical errors or miss an opportunity to end combat more quickly. It' s always a fun part of the game after a battle when players smack themselves on the head as they suddenly remember something they could have done. It seems to encourage players to know their characters better, and it definitely encourages team tactics and pre fight planning by the group.

I know this is a little off topic from the original topic of adding a declaring segment for combat, but since the conversation drifted towards keeping combat runing quickly and smoothly while maintaining a sense of chaos and grittines. I believe in our method of gameplay and I believe it's a great way to accomplish both goals, speed and creating the grittiness and action of combat.

 

[Phlebas]

Isn't declaration effectively a 'readied action' ?

All three games i play in have some form of cyclic initiative -
(mines the oldest and so I'm claiming credit)

a typical combat goes

Dm (rolls for monsters / NPC's)"... so Roll Initiative"

Players - "1", "13", "20, woohoo plus 4 is 24", "5"

DM sorts Cards representing players and NPC's into order of play, normally including monster cards, but sometime mentally noting where they were so players don't know how many actions they have before the monster goes

DM (Holds stack of cards so top is visible to all)" So player x goes first - what do you do?"

Player x (puts PHB down quickly) - " Errr. hang on"

DM (mentally counts from 1 to 5, turns card sideways to denote delay, places it at bottom of deck. player y's card is now on top) - "Player x delays, Player y, what do you do?"

Player y (looking smug as she was paying attention) - "Move to behind that pillar, and then ready an action to attack when BBEG in range"

Player x - "Ooh, i know what to do now, can i go next"

DM (was placing monster card on top of pile - decides player x left it too late and reinserts player x under the monster card) - "Sorry monster goes now, but you can follow immediately after"

etc

The only time i use anything like a declaration is when the party plan a suprise attack. Effectively they all delay and then decide in what order they would like to go in. If someone wants to change the sequence once it starts due to circumstance, then they effectively delay until they're ready to go.

Everybody knows they can't spend 5 minutes agonising over their move, so they normally plan it out during other peoples actions - its quite often common that someone will move into an awkward positon, or the monster does something strange and then the next 2 or 3 character actions are delayed while they come up with an alternative plans.

Having used cyclic initiative with cards i would NEVER go back to tracking it any other way. and i would suggest cyclic to any DM i gamed with

 

[NilesB]

I have never seen a player who pays more attention to the game under a system with a declaration phase. In fact I have often found that players whose declared action has been preempted cease to pay attention for the remainder of the round requiring a recap at the beginning of the next round. I have sometimes been this player. I could see how a game with a declaration phase and on the ball players could play as fast or faster than a game without a declaration phase and with inattentive dithering players. But inattentive dithering players can make Tunnels & Trolls or TOON run slower than Rolemaster or Twilight 2000.

If your players aren't paying attenion to the game I'd suggest you talk it over with them and try to work out a solution.

 

[kaomera]

Isn't declaration effectively a 'readied action' ?

I don't really see it that way. Declaration creates (for me, at least) much more of a sense that everything in a turn happens at once, rather than everyone waiting their turn to act. It's the sort of thing that gets parodied in comic strips often enough, but in actual play it's usually not really noticeable.

As to your example of play: I use cards myself. I don't (currently) force PCs to delay because the player can't make up their mind immediately, and I'm thinking this may be something I need to start doing to keep things going. Part of the problem is that with some players it comes up far more often than deciding on their actions, a declaration phase would cut down on the number of places in a turn that a given player has to do stuff, and therefore mean less places I need to slap wrists, or whatever... (But that doesn't mean switching to a declaration phase system is a great idea, hence this thread: I can sound out my crazy ideas here and sort the insane from the brilliant before I bring them to the table.)

I wanted to post how my typical combat goes, but... I tried to make this as accurate and snark-free as possible, but I just ended up piling all of my frustrations at the last six months' worth of sessions on it... :\ So the result was long and silly and I'm not going to bother posting it here... Only one or two problems really come up in any given session, but I ended up writing it like they all come up at once. I just got started and I couldn't stop. I was just venting a bit, I guess...

I have never seen a player who pays more attention to the game under a system with a declaration phase.

Fair enough. I'm sure it's more of a player issue than a rules issue, anyway (it nearly always is...). I'm really just looking for a way to short-cut the process of speeding up the game, and maybe that's a mistake. When I was playing AD&D the whole game was fun (or at least supposed to be), not just your own character's actions. Cheering on the other players and seeing what they did was part of the game that you where denying yourself if you where not paying attention. I don't know how to recapture that feeling, or if it's even possible... One big problem for me is that I think this is becoming self-perpetuating. Lately, knowing that some of the players just aren't going to be paying attention and combats have seemed to drag on forever, it's become more of a chore for me to provide good descriptions during play. I want to avoid a situation where I'm really not giving the players anything to pay attention to...

I do know how to recapture the other half of the equation ~ that not paying attention led to dead PCs. I'm just not sure if I really want to go there.

In fact I have often found that players whose declared action has been preempted cease to pay attention for the remainder of the round requiring a recap at the beginning of the next round. I have sometimes been this player. I could see how a game with a declaration phase and on the ball players could play as fast or faster than a game without a declaration phase and with inattentive dithering players. But inattentive dithering players can make Tunnels & Trolls or TOON run slower than Rolemaster or Twilight 2000.

Personally, I think I must have gotten lucky in that the way we always played the declaration phase this didn't come up all that often at all. If your action was pre-empted because everyone decided that taking down that enemy Wizard was number one priority and he dropped before you got to roll dice, well at least he was down! Or, if the party ran off half-cocked and more enemies appeared during a turn, well maybe you should have scouted a bit better? We "recapped" at the start of each round anyway, "Well, here's how the battle currently stands...", and we didn't really go back over stuff just because someone wasn't paying attention (although if there was any kind of excuse for the behavior I, personally, always let it slide and let another player clue them in).

If your players aren't paying attenion to the game I'd suggest you talk it over with them and try to work out a solution.

I've tried (not that I've tried enough, since the problem is still there...), but for the most part I don't think the players see what the big deal is. They're used to flipping open a book, or pulling out the magic cards, or whatever during everyone else's turns... And, yeah, by comparison to that my game is running pretty smoothly. But the delays and the distraction are bugging me, and I don't want this to turn into a game I don't really want to DM...