How meticulous can the planning be in a six-second combat round?

[KarinsDad]

Another is to have no cross table metagaming discussions or suggestions in combat outside of a player's own turn in which case he can say one thing.

So, "Fred, help me flank this guy" or "Barnie, use your Lightning power on the Vampire" is ok. Making two suggestions (or three or whatever you think inappropriate) is not.


Carefully explain the situation ahead of time and explain that you will be enforcing it by having the player who either makes too many suggestions on his turn, or the player who makes a cross table suggestion, do a melee or ranged basic attack on his next turn.


I have a player who does this as well. It's a bit annoying that he won't just let the other players play their PCs. My issue is different than yours, but it boils down to some people having to influence the game out of character.

By limiting the suggestions to player's turns, it not only speeds up the game, but it also forces the less tactically minded players to engage a bit more (as opposed to them allowing the other players to figure it out).

 

[Prestidigitalis]

The difference being that the PC's presumably know their abilities backwards and forwards, and will be practiced (and have discussed) tactically. Players on the other hand may sit together once every week or two for an evening, and commonly make grave interpretation errors, oversights, of fail to take into account knowledge the PC's may well have.

Thank you. As a player, this "you have 10 (20, whatever) seconds to choose an action" idea smacks of punishment for certain styles of play, including mine.

While I can understand placing time constraints on the occasional combat for thematic/plot reasons -- to convey a mood or sense of urgency unique to the context -- I cannot endorse doing it for the general purpose of realism.

The single overriding reason I can think of to place limits is to prevent boredom and disengagement on the part of the other participants.

I'd also like to point out that sometimes there are non-tactical questions at stake:

-- Do I attack an opponent, or do I stop to Heal-check my fallen comrade? Maybe I'm angry with my comrade, or in love with him/her. Maybe the opponent is my sworn enemy AND I'm in love with my comrade. My PC's choice should be emotionally appropriate and not just tactically sound -- and possibly instead of tactically sound.

-- Do I attack an opponent, or grab the spellbook before it is consumed by flames? I have reason to believe the spellbook contains a ritual I've sought for years.

Just as eamon points out that the PC knows his/her tactics up and down and inside and out, the PC also knows his/her emotions, plans, priorities, etc. intimately and with a concrete urgency that a player can only simulate. There may be times when the player knows instantly what choice to make, but in other cases a mental review is required. That review takes time, and in my opinion, that time should be granted.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The single overriding reason I can think of to place limits is to prevent boredom and disengagement on the part of the other participants.

This x 100. If everyone at the table is ok with detailed action analysis and strategy chats then there isn't a problem. The whole gang might only get to play one very detailed encounter per session but if that provides fun and entertainment for all then have at it.

The OP was expressing dissatisfaction with the overly long turn taking and thus it becomes a problem.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The PCs are typically this party that's fought together, either for a long time (backstory), or through some very intense battles (considering how fast they go up in levels), and are truely exceptional individuals. The warlord can get an ally back into the fight with a few encouraging words, for instance - that's a power, but it also implies a great deal of mutual trust, cooperation and respect within the party.

It's not at all unreasonable for close comrades-in-arms to execute precisely timed or seemingly 'choreographed' manuevers, either with IC shouted orders/ideas or wordlessly, with a look or gesture or just familiarity with eachother's styles. The players may take a few minutes of pointing at the board and talking over eachother's ideas to settle on the plan, but IC, it should be nothing so discordant (nor so obvious to the enemy).

Similarly, a player may have a character who is a seasoned warrior or shrewd tactician, while the player is not so tactically minded - letting him solicit advice from other players so he can choose actions that make sense for his character isn't a bad idea.

Of course, if the party is one that is inexperienced, mis-matched or new to eachother, it might make sense to limit such things, for the sake of RP. Still, it wouldn't do to limit it to the extent that it makes the party much less effective, and as the PCs get to know eachother - sooner if the RP 'training together' or getting to trust eachother - it would make sense to relent.

And, of course, if it's slowing things down and making the game less fun, break out the egg-timer and put a hard limit on planning and discussing in the middle of a fight.

 

[lukelightning]

I am firmly in the "give the players a bit of a break" camp. Even a level 1 fighter probably has 10x the tactical knowledge and skill that I have; I can easily explain players' constant communication, etc. during combat as the result of "off camera" tactical practice that the party participates in, or at the least tactical discussion. When the PCs have downtime, surely they talk about their combats and what they should have done and how to improve.

So when Ranger Rick is sitting there and the player can't decide which target to charge and attack, or which power to use, and other players chip in with advice, etc. I assume that at some previous time the PCs have talked about a similar situation and come up with a reasonable solution.

Of course, as players get more and more experienced, I hope the amount of time required for decisions drops (In my game I am planning on instituting a 5-second rule for deciding what you are doing, and possibly even a chess-like rule of "once you take your hand off the mini, it's there... no takesy-backsey!")

 

[CapnZapp]

Any thoughts?

Press SPACEBAR to pause and issue orders!

 

[Turtlejay]

I agree with eamon and prestidigitalis, PC's actions practiced and honed. A caution though, do not let the pendulum swing too far, to the point where players are not even considering actions outside their turns, and then spend an ungodly amount of time weighing their choices while the rest of you twiddle your thumbs.

There is something to be said for paying attention and weighing your options while it is not your turn. Watching enemy movement, and keeping your powers in mind. Of course, sometimes the turn right before yours buggers what you were about to do, but in that case you'd be justified in spending a little more time. Nothing is more frustrating that waiting for someone to make up their mind for five minutes, and then having them magic missile a minion. If you can't think of something mindblowingly awesome, then make it quick. Not every turn needs to be a grand demonstration of your tactial prowess, the game has enough wiggle room for you to phone a couple of your turns in occasionally.

Jay

 

[Prestidigitalis]

I am firmly in the "give the players a bit of a break" camp.

Of course, as players get more and more experienced, I hope the amount of time required for decisions drops (In my game I am planning on instituting a 5-second rule for deciding what you are doing, and possibly even a chess-like rule of "once you take your hand off the mini, it's there... no takesy-backsey!")

I have to say, I don't see how you can reconcile those two thoughts. Am I simply failing to appreciate some kind of joke in that last paragraph?

It's one thing to hope that the time required for decisions drops, but it's quite another to go all draconian if on a particular turn a PC fails to beat the clock due to an unexpected twist in the tactical situation or a simple failure to concentrate for a few moments.

 

[lukelightning]

I have to say, I don't see how you can reconcile those two thoughts. Am I simply failing to appreciate some kind of joke in that last paragraph?

Perhaps I am an enigma wrapped in a paradox wrapped in a low-carb multigrain pita?

I guess my weasel answer is that the "5-second rule" is kind of my ideal goal... and really most of the my the players do choose their actions rather quickly, it's just the times they spend a long time pondering moves stick in my memory more. I don't mind other players chiming in, giving advice, etc. because that means they are engaged in the game and paying attention, so their own turn is likely to go faster.

The no-taksey-backsy, however, I think I will implement. I have situations where someone goes and charges at an enemy, then starts to roll his attack and then changes his mind...goes back to his start, moves in a different way, then changes his mind....

 

[Neuroglyph]

It's one thing to hope that the time required for decisions drops, but it's quite another to go all draconian if on a particular turn a PC fails to beat the clock due to an unexpected twist in the tactical situation or a simple failure to concentrate for a few moments.

That's the hard part to figure out - will your group view your clocking them as draconian or agree with you and roll with a speedier process to add realism?

I've DM'd to all kinds of groups, and while, as the DM you control the flow ofthe game, make sure that this level of detail is comfortable for you players.