D&D (2024) One D&D Overly Complex

[Yaarel]

They get six seconds to start talking. Not to finish speaking, roll all dice etc.

And before you try and run some kind of argument that the player might filibuster, if they're mucking about, 'dodge action and turn ends' is always an option.

Be snappy with your turns. Take too long, and you take the Dodge action and miss your turn.

People who are learning to play need the time − and help choosing.

But experienced players should accustom themselves to being "snappy". At least for most situations.

 

[Flamestrike]

It sounds like a feature and a bug.

Player characters get less benefit from a godlike view of the battlefield....but....they likewise don't get the benefit of years of in-setting experience and in-person perspective that would facilitate good judgement on the battlefield.

DM: 6...5..4....
Player A: selects target to attack or cast spell on...
DM: OK..that target is behind a low wall so they get half cover for AC purposes
Player A: oh..wait a second..

DM: Too late, roll your attack.

DM: 1..0..your character takes the dodge action. Now it's the enemies' turn, here's how they move with perfect knowledge of their surroundings unconstrained by 6-second input timers.

Not at all!

The monsters are under the same constrains as the players are. I take my turns snappy, subject to what the monsters know and would do.

Dumb ogre swings club at biggest obvious threat. Mindflayer tries to eat the Arcane casters brain, because it's probably the juiciest. Etc.

Now..perhaps you aren't the kind of DM who would play gotcha games like this with your players,

Im not.

 

[Flamestrike]

People who are learning to play need the time − and help choosing.

Mentioned that multiple times already. New players get pauses, and explanations of the rules, and their class features. Even suggestions for how to best use them (Steve, Cunning action allows you to either X/Y or Z. It uses your bonus action for that turn. In addition, you can also use your bonus action to Aim granting advantage - explain advantage - to your next attack roll, as long as you dont move. Seeing as you're using a bow, and the guy you want to shoot is not near an ally, you'd be best served taking the Aim action, getting advantage, which also lets you sneak attack...etc).

One of the DM's roles is teaching the game and encouraging teamwork from the players after all.

That lasts for around the first 3 levels, then increasingly I get harsher and stop explaining the rules (but will still talk to the player before and after the game about the importance of reading and understanding them during the week and before the session).

A good DM plans the game, runs the game, manages the game, teaches the players, manages the players etc.

 

[Flamestrike]

If I ran a game this way, most of my table would quit.

And I'd have no problem if someone didnt want to play that way, and instead wanted to spend 10 minutes faffing about.

They can just do it at another table.

The Angry DM expects actions announced instantly:

Creating Exigency​

Exigency is hard for a GM who isn’t me. Why? Because I’m naturally inclined to be an a$&hole and I don’t care about the feelings of my players. Or, more specifically, I understand that, in a life-or-death battle, the proper feeling for a player is near-panic. Players should feel panicked and rushed in combat because the characters are panicked and rushed in combat. But most GMs don’t go that route.

Most GMs are quite happy to let their players take all the time in the world to decide on things or to converse amongst themselves about the best course of action. And if you can’t handle riding your players hard in combat, you can’t be a good GM. I don’t care what else you do well. If you can’t maintain a narrative pace, you can’t run a game.

And there’s only one way to create exigency. When it is a player’s’ turn, they need to begin speaking immediately. And if not, you need to prompt them.

Now, I realize that, thanks to my tone, it may come across to some dips$&%s that I’m encouraging you to be a complete a$&hat. And I am not. If you want to, I will support you. I am totally fine with the drill sergeant approach to GMing. BUT, that is not what you have to do to create exigency.

But you do have to make it clear that players need to make quick decisions or lose something. In the past, if a player took too long to decide, I put them on delay. In D&D 5E, that option doesn’t exist anymore. So I assume they take the Parry action. I actually call it “losing the turn to indecision.”

“What do you do? You need to decide or you’ll lose the turn to indecision.”

But, here’s the thing, it’ll almost never come to that. Or else, it’ll come to that ONCE. Precisely once. Because once the players realize you’re not dicking around and you WILL take their turn if they don’t, they won’t ever let that happen. A lost turn is literally the worst thing that can happen to a player except for an actual dead PC.

How much time do you allow your players? Well, it depends on how experienced they are. I generally cut new players SOME slack, but my baseline is zero seconds. I allow my players zero seconds to start talking at the start of their turn. After I say “what do you do,” I give them zero seconds to start talking to me. None. Not one second.

The players have been watching the battle go by for several turns before it comes back to them. If they’ve been attentive, they’ve been formulating and discarding plans the whole time. If they haven’t been attentive, they’re s$&% out of luck. Now, I’ve heard people argue that some players find combat boring and lose interest. But boredom is a luxury. You can only get bored if you have time to get bored. And if the combat is frantic and you’re literally going to get your character killed if you’re not attentive, you don’t get bored. You get tense. If your players are bored with combats, you’re letting them have that luxury. Don’t.

Now, exigency and urgency work together. The scene setting thing at the start of every turn where you point out an emergency the PC could deal with right away, it jumpstarts the player’s brain. That way, when you lay into the exigency, they have a starting point. The little bit of narration – that scene setting – is vital to prompting the player. And that’s why just riding the players about not taking too long doesn’t work. You need both. It creates the right pace and frame of mind and actually helps the player focus and reach a good decision quickly.

How to Manage Combat Like a Motherf$&%ing Dolphin

I've gotta say, I agree with him. My combats are run with a sense of urgency, exigency and tension, that is frankly quite noticeable in its absence when I go to other tables, where the PCs are given all the time in the world to faff about and screw around.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm being a little pedantic here, but it's about what you wrote.

You said "when you play at a big table"... and "Everyone is farting around" it sounds like "everyone" is everyone else is farting around and having fun.

How does "checking their phone" and "going off to walk the dog between turns" sound like "everyone else is having fun" to you?

 

[Gammadoodler]

The monsters are under the same constrains as the players are. I take my turns snappy, subject to what the monsters know and would do.

Even with the best of intentions, this is not ever really true. You put the monsters there. You designed the encounter setting. You make the rulings on what the monster sees/doesn't see or knows/doesn't know.

There is no signal loss and no ambiguity where the monster has to figure out the mechanical impacts of your descriptions.

They can 'play dumb' or 'act according to their instincts' (whatever they may be), but whatever their actions are, they are executed with an unambiguous understanding of what the monsters perceive in the setting.

Players always have to interpret what's on the map/in your descriptions and act based on that interpretation. Where they interpret incorrectly, it either takes more time to resolve as they gain clarity or (in your system) they are punished.

Perhaps sometimes this punishment is warranted (you told them three times that hallway was dark), but other times it will not be (on the map it looks like the room is lit).

Feature and bug.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Even with the best of intentions, this is not ever really true. You put the monsters there. You designed the encounter setting. You make the rulings on what the monster sees/doesn't see or knows/doesn't know.

There is no signal loss and no ambiguity where the monster has to figure out the mechanical impacts of your descriptions.

On the other hand I also have half a dozen monsters to run at once. With stat blocks that I might have never used before and never use again. Meanwhile the players have been playing these same characters with almost the same rules for weeks or even months. There is, I agree, an excuse for misunderstanding the situation (especially if playing Theatre of the Mind). But there's a difference between that and faffing round with your character sheet and not deciding between options without asking for more information.

 

[Gammadoodler]

On the other hand I also have half a dozen monsters to run at once. With stat blocks that I might have never used before and never use again. Meanwhile the players have been playing these same characters with almost the same rules for weeks or even months. There is, I agree, an excuse for misunderstanding the situation (especially if playing Theatre of the Mind). But there's a difference between that and faffing round with your character sheet and not deciding between options without asking for more information.

Sure. I'd agree that sometimes there needs to be a process in place to keep people on track, if the goal is to complete the encounter.

I'd disagree that the potentially chaotic and misjudged consequences of a six-second timer are all feature, no bug.

That said, there's probably a time threshold I wouldn't blink at, probably 30 secs or so.

Edit: assuming that completing the encounter is a primary objective, which, in a social game played among friends, may not always be the case.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

How does "checking their phone" and "going off to walk the dog between turns" sound like "everyone else is having fun" to you?

Anything a person does is what they want to do (or is an unconscious or learned behavior, for good or bad.)

Walking the dog so it can relieve itself is more important than a game. Checking on the kids is more important than a game. And if their Twitter feed is keeping their attention over the game... well... it's what they want to do or are compelled to do. At that point, it's about how do you react, and how do they react to that reaction. After all is said and done, I suggest being kind and empathic, and communicating to work it out.

 

[MNblockhead]

It's ok, I appreciate you asking.

I'm not really up for trying to explain it again. The responses I've gotten on ENWorld have been... I dunno... really really invalidating. People start telling me and giving examples like you have, and I don't feel like it's a safe listening space at all.

No offense meant to you. I've just had too many bad experiences with trying to broach this topic, and then when I share all the things I've done, I get told how I'm doing it so wrong and I need to try XYZ (which I have exhaustedly), and I just have lost the stomach for that. Sorry.

If it makes you feel any better, I had a combat last six hours last session. That doesn't include hours of preparation they put preparing for it.

Long combat is only a bad thing if you and the players are not having fun.

Really, I think whenever the discussion of "combat is taking too long", it needs to be reframed as "how can I make combat more fun for my players."

If your players just are not into combat, put less of it into your game.

If your main objective is to shorten IRL time spent on combat, you have a lot of options as a GM. But before jumping into that discussion, I would first need to understand why you don't like long combats in the first place.

Short combats can be equally unsatisfying, either because you don't get enough rounds for the monsters to do interesting stuff, or because you have to make the monsters hit so hard to make them feel like a challenge that you may risk upsetting some players by downing their characters in the first round.

In my personal experience, when combat in D&D starts to get unsatisfying it is usually because of the wait-your-turn initiative system, or the time it takes per player turn, rather than the overall length of the combat. I've played other systems where players basically work together to build dice pools based on how they contribute to the combat. These make each round take more time, but it doesn't feel like it because everyone is engaged, working together on what they will do as a group.

I've been looking into options like side-based initiative that don't mess too much with the core mechanics of D&D and still support that moving-spotlight approach to combat that let's each PC have its moment on stage. I haven't come up with anything I'm satisfied with yet. The more I play around with changing turn-based initiative to more I think it would just work better to run a different system.