GMs - Do you get bored when you're a player?

[Gorgon Zee]

Wasn't my experience with 4E at all, and I just wrapped up a 9 month campaign in August, so the memory is fresh.
I used a timer to track a round in combat: sometimes it took over an hour.
Regardless of the system, I like to use some sort of visual representation of combats and rarely do theatre of the mind.

yeah, some tables can play slow - but an hour per round is way slower than most. My experience is that an average combat took about an hour; faster at low levels, maybe up to 75 minutes at epic. I would say we both have anecdotal experience, but if you read the LFR adventures, they are pretty consistent with that -- expecting 3 combats at low levels, and more like 2 at higher levels. Assuming a 3.5 hour running time and typically about 2/3 of the time spent in combat, it's consistent with my experience.

D&D 4E combats are slow, because the game is all about the build and the tactics, but if your combats are routinely lasting over an hour, you may want to adjust your play style -- unless, of course, you like that pace!

I'd agree with you that OSR is much faster. At low levels, it's rare you have to make a decision, and a single roll of a handful of dice resolves it. Running AD&D at mid levels, a combat was 20 mins very often.

 

[Retreater]

Is the game you play limited to combat?

Let's be honest. TTRPGs aren't 100% combat. But when we're looking at traditional RPGs, let's consider the following...
1) Your character sheet is built for combat.
2) All your powers, abilities, magic items, etc., are largely focused on combat.
3) The rules of the game are predominantly geared towards combat.
4) Combat is the most structured part of the game, where actions and time matter the most.
5) If you strike out "B.S. time" (telling jokes, bio breaks, etc.), combat takes the plurality of active gaming time.

If your character whiffs in combat and doesn't contribute, you're missing out on probably 75% of the session time, 75% of the interaction of the game system design. Of course, I can "roleplay" as an intelligent piece of chewing gum that can quip one-liners each time the party's marksman chomps down on me, but that doesn't mean that I'm contributing in a meaningful way or having fun.

If all my character's abilities are spelled out on a character sheet (and in the game rules), I have little variety in what I can conceivably do to change the world (or even a fight). Don't forget that even roleplaying and investigative skills are explicitly described in Pathfinder 2. For example, you MUST have at least 1 minute to talk to someone to "Make an impression" (like a Diplomacy check). You CANNOT attempt to talk to 10 people unless you take a feat. You CANNOT try to persuade a group of more than 10 unless you take bonus skill ranks.

It's like - if you don't have this thing on your sheet, then get out of here. You can't try it.

And I've had the same thing happen in basically every system I've played in the past 5 years. It doesn't matter how creative you want to be. The rules just stop you. That's part of what makes the whole experience so boring to me.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Let's be honest. TTRPGs aren't 100% combat. But when we're looking at traditional RPGs, let's consider the following...
1) Your character sheet is built for combat.
2) All your powers, abilities, magic items, etc., are largely focused on combat.
3) The rules of the game are predominantly geared towards combat.
4) Combat is the most structured part of the game, where actions and time matter the most.
5) If you strike out "B.S. time" (telling jokes, bio breaks, etc.), combat takes the plurality of active gaming time.

I have a feeling that by "traditional RPGs" you are defining it in terms of combat-focused games -- basically D&D and direct descendants. Would you include older games like Pendragon, Toon, Call of Cthulhu, Traveler, Runequest and Top Secret as "traditional games", or are you really just focusing on D&D?

I haven't run all of the above games (all of which are 40+ years old and fit my definition of traditional!) but I've played all of them, and they don't really fit your description.

 

[Retreater]

I have a feeling that by "traditional RPGs" you are defining it in terms of combat-focused games -- basically D&D and direct descendants. Would you include older games like Pendragon, Toon, Call of Cthulhu, Traveler, Runequest and Top Secret as "traditional games", or are you really just focusing on D&D?

Let's see. From what I've played, I'll say "yes" to Call of Cthulhu, Traveler, and add Warhammer Fantasy, Savage Worlds, and most PbtA variants.
If you can't contribute in combat in any of these systems, your character is basically pointless - and you're going to sit around without much to do.

 

[Thomas Shey]

yeah, some tables can play slow - but an hour per round is way slower than most. My experience is that an average combat took about an hour; faster at low levels, maybe up to 75 minutes at epic. I would say we both have anecdotal experience, but if you read the LFR adventures, they are pretty consistent with that -- expecting 3 combats at low levels, and more like 2 at higher levels. Assuming a 3.5 hour running time and typically about 2/3 of the time spent in combat, it's consistent with my experience.

D&D 4E combats are slow, because the game is all about the build and the tactics, but if your combats are routinely lasting over an hour, you may want to adjust your play style -- unless, of course, you like that pace!

I'd agree with you that OSR is much faster. At low levels, it's rare you have to make a decision, and a single roll of a handful of dice resolves it. Running AD&D at mid levels, a combat was 20 mins very often.

I'd suggest the likely culprit is decision paralysis. If you don't have many choices to make, being indecisive is liable to be less impactful; if you have a lot of them (some outside your normal initiative block) its much more likely someone who can't make up his mind easily will hang-fire.

(Dryly I noted back in the day--and still think this is largely true) that an OD&D Fighting-Man in combat could have his player occasionally intervene to pick new targets and (rarely) change weapons, and other than that a die roller could have done everything else. To the degree this wasn't true it was at the intersection of player creativity and GM tolerance, and a lot of people learned not to count on that getting them anywhere, even if they had the energy for it).

 

[Thomas Shey]

If all my character's abilities are spelled out on a character sheet (and in the game rules), I have little variety in what I can conceivably do to change the world (or even a fight). Don't forget that even roleplaying and investigative skills are explicitly described in Pathfinder 2. For example, you MUST have at least 1 minute to talk to someone to "Make an impression" (like a Diplomacy check). You CANNOT attempt to talk to 10 people unless you take a feat. You CANNOT try to persuade a group of more than 10 unless you take bonus skill ranks.

I have to note your conclusion largely only applies A) In the D&D sphere, and B) To fighting types. I can think of a game system easily where the latter isn't even true, because every character has a large number of mechanical handles. Many of them are situational, but they're at least available.

(I personally think you're also even overstating it for PF2e, and I played a sword-and-board character for an extended period of time, but that assessment is at least closer to on than the overgeneralization you're making above).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Let's see. From what I've played, I'll say "yes" to Call of Cthulhu, Traveler, and add Warhammer Fantasy, Savage Worlds, and most PbtA variants.
If you can't contribute in combat in any of these systems, your character is basically pointless - and you're going to sit around without much to do.

That's a very odd claim with CoC, and is at least using "contribute" to do some heavy lifting with Traveler (i.e. it requires a pretty big effort to make that be the case).

 

[Eric V]

It's like - if you don't have this thing on your sheet, then get out of here. You can't try it.

?? Where does it say this?

 

[Retreater]

That's a very odd claim with CoC, and is at least using "contribute" to do some heavy lifting with Traveler (i.e. it requires a pretty big effort to make that be the case).

Let's say you have a research-based character in Cthulhu. You've got great Library Use, lots of points in Anthropology and Languages. You're going to make some rolls in a library, then you're going to tell the adventurers where to go. They're going to sneak into the lair, pick locks, knock out the cultists. Your nerd is going to be sitting in the safehouse waiting.
That's all I can do, anyway. Can't take a hit, can't reliably hit, can't sneak. I'm an NPC.

 

[Retreater]

?? Where does it say this?

"Anyone can use a skill's untrained actions, but you can use trained actions only if you have a proficiency rank of trained or better in that skill."
Can't even attempt it if you're not trained or better.
What trained actions are we looking at?
A few examples...
Squeeze (Acrobatics)
Disarm (Athletics)
Feint (Deception)
Track (Survival)