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

[MNblockhead]

Yeah I can get with online play slowing things up.

In my experience, playing online has sped things up.

I think most of it is using software to support a lot of the DM's game management tasks, which could also be used in in-person games, but I didn't use software to help run my games as much when I ran them in person.

All the other stuff is just table etiquette, player engagement, and player preparedness/system master. Most of these issues I find are the same online as they are in person.

I also run long sessions, which helps prevent me from getting bent out of shape if someone needs to step away, take a call, etc. Calling for an impromptu break in the game in an 8 hour session is less disruptive than in a four-hour-or-less game.

 

[Quickleaf]

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.

I appreciate what you're saying. Some of it certainly resonates, and I have a different point of view on other parts based on my experience.

The issue I've encountered on ENWorld – and why I'm recalcitrant to share my experiences – is that the invitation to "explain my experiences" so often isn't an invitation or offer to listen at all, rather it's a sort of waiting-to-pounce and tell me just how wrong and invalid my experiences are, and why I should implement XYZ, and how no matter how I assert yes I have, that clearly if it's not working then either I'm not really implementing XYZ, or my goals are wrong, or... geez... whatever shifting goal post they want really.

I remember ENWorld as at least having more sense of camaraderie, and even when there were differing perspectives we wouldn't second guess each other.

This isn't directed towards you or Flame, or anyone specific, it's just the tone of the conversation isn't something where I feel safe sharing.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Is a four hour combat too long?
Depends on the context.
If it's 15 high levels beings in a major encounter? Not really.
If it's a couple of orcs in a room guarding a pie? Yes

 

[MNblockhead]

I remember ENWorld as at least having more sense of camaraderie, and even when there were differing perspectives we wouldn't second guess each other.

This isn't directed towards you or Flame, or anyone specific, it's just the tone of the conversation isn't something where I feel safe sharing.

Yeah, I've only been on ENWorld since around when 5e came out, but it feels the same way to me. From comments people make about the 4e "edition wars", I wonder if the same thing might be going on. With one DnD, along with various controversies over some of WotC's decisions regarding the OGL and other bad press, I think things have gotten a bit more antagonistic, even in topics that are not D&D specific.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I have had problems with players in current 5e who cannot make a decision and barely learn how their class works. Adding more complexity will be a nightmare.

Maybe we shouldn't design the game for those not even interested in how the basics work? Or at least not shackle one of the iconic classes to the lowest common denominator? Make simple classes for each group: Warrior, Priest, Mage, and Expert. All at-will abilities, no spell slots, no rest-based mechanics, just bigger numbers on their stuff. Priests get a heal button and a smite/mace button. Mages get 2 zap buttons. Experts just get advantage on all skills and a stab button. Warriors get shoot and stab buttons with bigger to hit and damage.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

So when you say "most people are getting bored", that sounds like everyone=you. And then you say you are being draconian to force everyone else to have a good time.

I understand @codo 's comment about quitting a game like that on the spot. I prefer a focused and efficient game myself, but I could never be draconian with my friends who all just want to have a good time and laugh, and reconnect after a hard week.

To be fair, if your friends would rather have a good time and laugh then engage in the activity you all agreed to, perhaps that particular evening isn't a good one for gaming.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

To be fair, if your friends would rather have a good time and laugh then engage in the activity you all agreed to, perhaps that particular evening isn't a good one for gaming.

Maybe not for the person does not like that at all. There is such a thing as "beer and pretzels" gaming where people just have fun. What is more important? A strictly time-managed and efficient game, or actually playing with your friends in the way they naturally enjoy?

To be fair, if you are playing with strangers, or are paying for a DM experience, it's way easier to leave a game and find something else if you don't have the "friend" angle keeping you there.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Maybe not for the person does not like that at all. There is such a thing as "beer and pretzels" gaming where people just have fun. What is more important? A strictly time-managed and efficient game, or actually playing with your friends in the way they naturally enjoy?

To be fair, if you are playing with strangers, or are paying for a DM experience, it's way easier to leave a game and find something else if you don't have the "friend" angle keeping you there.

We have many times ended a session early because it was clear most or all the participants were more interested in socializing than playing. To force the game when folks aren't into it just leads to disappointment all around.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

We have many times ended a session early because it was clear most or all the participants were more interested in socializing than playing. To force the game when folks aren't into it just leads to disappointment all around.

Based on what you just said, it doesn't sound like disappointment all around. It sounds like some people are having a different kind of fun, and others at the table would rather leave and end the game, than socialize in that way. It just tells the table that they value the game over the group. There is nothing wrong with that. But there is nothing wrong with the beer and pretzels way either. Sounds like something that a Session Zero can hash out to see if the group is compatible with each other.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Based on what you just said, it doesn't sound like disappointment all around. It sounds like some people are having a different kind of fun, and others at the table would rather leave and end the game, than socialize in that way. It just tells the table that they value the game over the group. There is nothing wrong with that. But there is nothing wrong with the beer and pretzels way either. Sounds like something that a Session Zero can hash out to see if the group is compatible with each other.

It is disappointment all around. The people who want to hang out are being pushed to play, and the people who want to play are fighting uphill to make that happen.