Predict this encounter

[IcyCool]

Yeah, I expected a “you’re a bad DM” comment or two. What "rules regarding table talk" are you referring to?

Well, there haven't been any of those yet. And hopefully you won't get any.

So that I know the proper way to handle this in the future, how long should I have given them to talk the situation out? An hour at the table for 30 minutes in the game? More? And once I had the sorcerer roll initiative to beat the LSS dropping, how long (out-of-game) should I have given them for one round (in-game)? A full minute? 10?

As long as you told them or made them aware that the amount of time they spent real-time was directly related to game-time, you could give however much (or little) time you want. If they were unaware, I can certainly see where it would feel unfair.

Also, I'm a bit confused. You had the sorcerer roll initiative to see if he could teleport out before the shelter came down, right? So when he won, did his character do that, or did the party, in character, continue to discuss things (i.e. The sorcerer wins initiative and changes his action to 'sit around and discuss')?

 

[Quasqueton]

You had the sorcerer roll initiative to see if he could teleport out before the shelter came down, right? So when he won, did his character do that, or did the party, in character, continue to discuss things (i.e. The sorcerer wins initiative and changes his action to 'sit around and discuss')?

Yep. They continued to discuss. The sorcerer wanted to cast and get out, but at least one of the others balked, so they restarted the discussion.

As long as you told them or made them aware that the amount of time they spent real-time was directly related to game-time, you could give however much (or little) time you want. If they were unaware, I can certainly see where it would feel unfair.

I've started another thread on this concept in general. This thread, here, is the first time I've ever heard anyone argue that real time = game time (unless explicitely stated otherwise) was not the expected norm.

Quasqueton

 

[IcyCool]

Yep. They continued to discuss. The sorcerer wanted to cast and get out, but at least one of the others balked, so they restarted the discussion.

I figured. Give the players a way to cause injury to themselves, and they will figure out a way to kill themselves with it.

I've started another thread on this concept in general. This thread, here, is the first time I've ever heard anyone argue that real time = game time (unless explicitely stated otherwise) was not the expected norm.

Well, it certainly takes longer than 6 seconds to fight out a round of combat, so the norm seems quite different in combat. Also, I'm not questioning your call of timing them. Just that I can see why someone might think it unfair. I have had GMs do it in the past, but they always announced it before hand, which made our discussion have a certain, authentic urgency.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Yep. They continued to discuss. The sorcerer wanted to cast and get out, but at least one of the others balked, so they restarted the discussion.

So, it seems like it's your group's style that real time = game time.

Quite honestly, I can't comprehend the stupidity in tactics your players have shown. How can they possibly sit around and discuss after initiative is rolled, expecting anything less than a TPK? If they don't fight back, how can that ever be a good thing?

It makes no sense at all. This is what I am picturing happening, based on your real-time=game-time:

DM: "Roll initiative" (rolls are made) "Okay, Src you first."
Src: "I'm thinking of casting teleport and ..."
Rgr: "No, we should ..."
DM: "Okay, 6 seconds have elapsed, one giant takes a full attack on the ranger. Paladin your turn."
Pal: "I think we should stay and fight and not teleport ..."
DM: "Okay, another 6 seconds and the other giant..."

To the players, Hello! Wake up and take part in the encounter!

 

[shilsen]

So, it seems like it's your group's style that real time = game time.

Quite honestly, I can't comprehend the stupidity in tactics your players have shown. How can they possibly sit around and discuss after initiative is rolled, expecting anything less than a TPK? If they don't fight back, how can that ever be a good thing?

It makes no sense at all. This is what I am picturing happening, based on your real-time=game-time:

This is where I think the DM needs to step in. My group had a tendency, early on, to try to give too much advice (IME) to each other during combat. After a couple of times where I interrupted and said, "Each round lasts six seconds," they got used to the idea of giving a sentence or two of advice and moving on.

 

[Quasqueton]

Just that I can see why someone might think it unfair.

I’ll point out that none of my Players thought it unfair. In fact, they explicitly blamed themselves for ending up surrounded by giants. Only here did people point to it as a fault.

Well, it certainly takes longer than 6 seconds to fight out a round of combat, so the norm seems quite different in combat.

Obviously, this is one of those “stated otherwise” situations. So is traveling for a day, spending two weeks crafting a magic item, and sleeping through the night. I should know to expect in the Rules forum that the meaning of a statement will get parsed out to minute detail for error or inconsistency. There is no "spirit of the rules" concept here.

So, it seems like it's your group's style that real time = game time.

It’s been the base assumption (for situations like this discussion) of every group I’ve ever experienced (as a Player or a DM).

DM: "Roll initiative" (rolls are made) "Okay, Src you first."
Src: "I'm thinking of casting teleport and ..."
Rgr: "No, we should ..."
DM: "Okay, 6 seconds have elapsed, one giant takes a full attack on the ranger. Paladin your turn."
Pal: "I think we should stay and fight and not teleport ..."
DM: "Okay, another 6 seconds and the other giant..."

More like:

Sorcerer: I’m casting teleport and we’ll get out of here.
DM: [noting 40 minutes have passed] OK, but the shelter is about to end. Roll initiative to see if you cast your spell before it ends.
[rolls made, sorcerer wins]
Sorcerer: I move up between them and cast. . .
Ranger: Wait, [stuff, stuff, stuff]
Paladin: But, [stuff, stuff, stuff]
Sorcerer: Well, [stuff, stuff, stuff]
Ranger: Then, [stuff, stuff, stuff]
Paladin: Or, [stuff, stuff, stuff]
Sorcerer: How about, [stuff, stuff, stuff]
DM: <sigh> OK, the shelter ends. Everyone roll initiative.

Quasqueton

 

[irdeggman]

YI've started another thread on this concept in general. This thread, here, is the first time I've ever heard anyone argue that real time = game time (unless explicitely stated otherwise) was not the expected norm.

Quasqueton

Well there is an inerent problem with that using the RAW.

A combat round lasts roughly 6 seconds.

How long (real time) does a typical combat take?

Assuming that the player's don't stop to talk and discuss things - the real time will be much greater than 6 seconds. I have found that a combat that takes 1/2 hour (real time) takes around 1 minute of game time.

Now it seems that you had wanted all along for the party to engage the giants, even though they were leaning towards running away. Decisions made might be a reflection of this desire to have a combat - only making an observation not a factual statement.

As long as you notified the players that the "clock had started" then what happend is basically fine. No if you didn't and hadn't been enforcing the real time = game time rule in the past then it is unfair (IMO) to suddenly insert that "rule" on the players in the middle of an "encounter".

 

[IcyCool]

I’ll point out that none of my Players thought it unfair. In fact, they explicitly blamed themselves for ending up surrounded by giants. Only here did people point to it as a fault.

I'm guessing that they all know that real-time = game-time. My mistake on the 'unfair' comment. It's early, and I'm still working through my first cup of coffee.

Obviously, this is one of those “stated otherwise” situations. So is traveling for a day, spending two weeks crafting a magic item, and sleeping through the night. I should know to expect in the Rules forum that the meaning of a statement will get parsed out to minute detail for error or inconsistency. There is no "spirit of the rules" concept here.

Well, not obviously. If there is one thing I try not to do on the internet, it's assume I know what the other person is talking about. Without facial expressions and body language, I have no way of knowing someone's intent. My apologies if I have offended you, you seem irritated.

 

[irdeggman]

More like:

Sorcerer: I’m casting teleport and we’ll get out of here.
DM: [noting 40 minutes have passed] OK, but the shelter is about to end. Roll initiative to see if you cast your spell before it ends.
[rolls made, sorcerer wins]
Sorcerer: I move up between them and cast. . .
Ranger: Wait, [stuff, stuff, stuff]
Paladin: But, [stuff, stuff, stuff]
Sorcerer: Well, [stuff, stuff, stuff]
Ranger: Then, [stuff, stuff, stuff]
Paladin: Or, [stuff, stuff, stuff]
Sorcerer: How about, [stuff, stuff, stuff]
DM: <sigh> OK, the shelter ends. Everyone roll initiative.

Quasqueton

What should have happened when they were "discussing" whether or not to teleport was action by the giants.

Several more thumps on the shelter should have nudged the players into realizing that time was passing.

Although sometimes you just can't get people to realize what is going on no matter how many "hints" and "warnings" you supply.

 

[Bladesong]

I have to side with the DM here. Whether I am a player or a DM, I hate, absolutely HATE it when players bog down the game with useless and unnecessary delay. Encounters are almost ALWAYS easier than some players make them out to be. It should have taken all of 5 minutes, real time, to figure out what action to take here.
If nothing else if there was a "split decision" the party should have pre-selected the 'leader' who has the last say in the matter and followed his/her lead.