D&D 5E Some Tips for Smoother, Faster Play

[Lanefan]

I wouldn't say my games are light on in-character dialogue. It may just be distributed differently. Typically it's in the context of Getting Stuff Done rather than as lengthy transition scenes between challenges as I see in some games (particularly streamed games).

Not familiar with stremed games, but what would your take be were the group to spend the session on an in-depth and fully in-character discussion around the campfire regarding the place of, say, Orcs in the world?

For me, this is every bit as much role-playing - and every bit as important in character development - as are exploration, combat, and social interaction with NPCs.

 

[Lanefan]

And I still maintain that "I want to use my acrobatics proficiency to swing on the chandelier and smash out the window to escape the town guard raiding the tavern" is mor efficient and preserves player agency better than "I want to swing on the chandelier and smash out the window to escape" "Okay make a strength (athletics) check" "But I'm proficient in acrobatics" is.

I can see both sides here.

Your version mixes meta-declaration (the mention of the acrobatics check) and in-character declaration (I'll try to swing on the chandelier...) in what's to me a somewhat-jarring way, while also assuming much more player control over suggesting the resolution mechanics than I'd ever put up with. But, it's also more efficient provided the DM accepts the player's resolution method.

(and were it me as DM I'd call for a Dex check instead of Strength, but then my game doesn't have a specific 'acrobatics' skill...)

 

[Charlaquin]

Not familiar with stremed games, but what would your take be were the group to spend the session on an in-depth and fully in-character discussion around the campfire regarding the place of, say, Orcs in the world?

For me, this is every bit as much role-playing - and every bit as important in character development - as are exploration, combat, and social interaction with NPCs.

I know you weren’t asking me, but I would agree with you that such in-character conversation is roleplaying. It might or might not be character development, depending on whether or not the players learn anything new about the characters from it - their fellow players’ or their own. Whether or not it’s important depends on what the group values. If everybody in the group loves that kind of character dialogue, then yeah, it’s definitely important. But I imagine in most groups, some number of players is going to find that boring. That might be ok, players engage with the game in different ways and sometimes to cater to some players’ engagement styles you gotta accept that some other players might check out. The solutions are either to only spend game time on forms of engagement everyone at the table enjoys, or be ready to shift gears quickly in response to the general interest levels of the group.

Personally, I say different groups for different priorities. My partner and I are more than happy to play one-on-one games where we spend whole sessions on just this kind of roleplaying. But with my 5-player group I know I would lose half my players if I spend too long on that kind of thing.

In general, with a mixed group, I think the more focus on tension and high-stakes decision making, the happier everyone will be.

 

[Lanefan]

I know you weren’t asking me, but I would agree with you that such in-character conversation is roleplaying. It might or might not be character development, depending on whether or not the players learn anything new about the characters from it - their fellow players’ or their own.

I tend to learn more about my own characters in these sort of chats than I do about others.

Whether or not it’s important depends on what the group values. If everybody in the group loves that kind of character dialogue, then yeah, it’s definitely important. But I imagine in most groups, some number of players is going to find that boring. That might be ok, players engage with the game in different ways and sometimes to cater to some players’ engagement styles you gotta accept that some other players might check out.

This points back to my earlier bit about having a group with a varying definition of fun, and I agree with you here: some people like some aspects of the game (any game!) more than other aspects.

The solutions are either to only spend game time on forms of engagement everyone at the table enjoys,

On the surface, this sounds like the approach @iserith takes.

or be ready to shift gears quickly in response to the general interest levels of the group.

Perhaps, though there's a risk there too: if two players are in some long deep in-character conversation and the other two players are sitting there bored, you can either annoy the two talkers by cutting them off or annoy the two non-talkers by letting it continue. (as a player, I'll just find a way to insert my character into the conversation if I'm that bored...)

Personally, I say different groups for different priorities. My partner and I are more than happy to play one-on-one games where we spend whole sessions on just this kind of roleplaying. But with my 5-player group I know I would lose half my players if I spend too long on that kind of thing.

In general, with a mixed group, I think the more focus on tension and high-stakes decision making, the happier everyone will be.

Perhaps, but if the low-stakes stuff e.g. campfire chats is completely cut out I think something is very much lost from a game.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The rather large assumption this makes - and you even point it out - is that everyone's idea of 'fun' is just about always the same.

News flash: it isn't; and even a single person's idea of what's 'fun' might change from one session to the next depending on mood, or from one year to the next depending on whatever.

Which merely tells me you're forcing the definition of what's relevant and what isn't on to your players, and then making them agree. You're also in some ways telling players how to play their characters; all in the interest of saving time which is, in the end, a nigh-boundless resource provided you're healthy and not ancient.

Big. Red. Flags.

Also, what happens if the reason Tom's character doesn't want to go on an adventure is because he's heard of another adventure he'd rather do instead?
Completely agree with these two; though I've run into all kinds of trouble in the past (both as player and DM) in situations where the DM describes something and the player from that description imagines something different, even after supposedly-clarifying questions. Never ends well.

It's a win if you want nothing but groupthink rather than individualism, both at the table and PC level; and pretty much soft-bans chaotics both as players and PCs. Another big red flag.

It's also a win for the first person to suggest an idea - which while being good for promoting quick thinking is bad if the idea suggested simply isn't worth considering; as everyone's then stuck with it.

And the barbarian can still charge in regardless, she just has to be quick about it before anyone says anything.

This is quite different from the completely unacceptable practice of telling other players how to play their characters.

It's also a loss to those who maybe don't think (or speak up) quite as fast but whose idea or plan would in the end be better. They're forced to say "Yes, and..." and go along with an inferior idea where what they really want to say is "Yes, or...".

You may run circles around other groups in terms of quantity of content, but quality? That'd be in the eye of the beholder, I think, and what might be quality for you could be anything but for someone else. Not to say your games aren't good for your crew; I'm sure they are, but to say be wary of extrapolating that experience too far on to others.

My own tips for smoother faster play mostly come from the DM side:

• make your descriptions concise, i.e. give the same info you'd have given before but don't use ten words where two will do. (this is true even if using a published module with boxed text, as the boxed text sometimes gets too flowery for its own good!)
• be ready and willing to make stuff up if you're asked a question that you haven't a prepped answer for (for me, I often find myself having to dream up names on the spot for NPCs I mistakenly thought would be irrelevant).
• be ready to start on time even if the players aren't (my lot often arrive late and leave later, it;s just how they are).

Very much agree here. I feel like the first two suggestions make Very Specific Assumptions (ahem) about what kind of game you're playing, and what's going to be going on. That kind be a fun kind of game, but it can also get pretty tiring in a bad way, after a certain number of sessions, I speak from experience of a game which sounded precisely like what is being described. It definitely wasn't a bad game, but eventually I was just a bit bored of that approach. I don't think either "rule" actually speeds things up, as a matter of fact - they merely force a particular style of play.

And all the players being on roughly the same page about style of play tends to speed things, but it doesn't have to be that style of play. And I know a lot of people are eye-rolling on your point re: Tom, but I've seen that work out, I've seen "Tom" convince the other PCs to do it his way, and it's been fun. What is a real problem, and isn't a speed problem, is when one PC (or more) is either an outright non-adventurer in an adventure-centric RPG. But that's extremely rare in my experience, particularly in D&D.

As you say, the other two suggestions are much stronger.

Personally I tend to focus on DM-side preparation, because I find my main group aren't too bad for time, and if they're "wasting" it there's usually a good reason.

DM-wise, I always do a few things:

1) Make sure I have quick access to the statblocks of every monster or NPC I believe may be relevant in the current scenario. In 2E, er, well I wasn't good at this, but I tended to end up putting sticky notes in the MM or writing out monster stats on paper. 3E was somewhat similar though with photocopies, extracted pages from PDFs, and so on, getting into the mix. In 4E I actually got good at this. I had all the monsters printed out for pretty much every session, and could access the stats near-instantly. In 5E, I use a laptop I bought specifically for running D&D, and just keep every monster open in a tab on Chrome (on Beyond), though I sometimes use a Chrome extension or even the new beta Encounter Builder to store them.

2) With home-written stuff, re-read your notes ahead of time, because if anything remotely complicated is going on, you're going to have forgotten something, and players being players, it will come up in some big way.

3) Again with home-written stuff, keep all your notes and pictures and so on in some kind of tool or folder-structure. I use Microsoft Note. I don't actually love Note, it but works much better, ironically, than the stuff I've used like Obsidian Portal.

4) With published stuff, always read all the way through the entire adventure/AP at least once (even if you're not going to run it all immediately), and make notes. Lots of notes. If it's a physical copy, bring a highlighter and sticky arrows or the like. If not, work out some other solution. Most published adventures, even good ones, are downright badly organised. So make a bunch of notes and highlight stuff.

Then before the actual session, go over what you're expecting to run.

5) Don't ask for unnecessary rolls. Remember that it's fine to let PCs auto-succeed at stuff if their description is correct and failure isn't interesting or consequential, or even if it failure would be, but their description and abilities are a perfect fit. Do make sure they know that they auto-succeeded because of these factors, that it wasn't just random, but nothing drags down and drags out a D&D session like endless, largely unnecessary rolls.

6) You don't have to draw out every combat until every enemy is dead on the ground. If you've got to the point where the PCs are no longer really using resources, it's fine for the enemy to be fleeing, or even to just say that the PCs cut them down. This doesn't work for every group, but I've operated this way for decades and it's saved a lot of time over the years and even tends to increase immersion/sense of verisimilitude. Equally sometimes maybe a combat doesn't need to happen. If the PCs are doing great, and basically one encounter from a long rest, and that encounter isn't going to particularly add to things or test them, does it have to be there?

This may seem basic, but I've seen an awful lot of DMs not do it. Particularly 5. My experience is that perhaps the majority of D&D DMs (certainly 3E or later) have an issue with just asking for lots of checks for things that really shouldn't need checks.

 

[Charlaquin]

I tend to learn more about my own characters in these sort of chats than I do about others.

I think most folks do. Roleplaying is generally an introspective exercise.

On the surface, this sounds like the approach @iserith takes.

I don’t care to speculate on that. He can chime in if he so desires.

Perhaps, though there's a risk there too: if two players are in some long deep in-character conversation and the other two players are sitting there bored, you can either annoy the two talkers by cutting them off or annoy the two non-talkers by letting it continue. (as a player, I'll just find a way to insert my character into the conversation if I'm that bored...)

Third option: you could allow the players who are so engrossed in the conversation to continue, while running some manner of side-content for the two disinterested players. That kind of juggling can be tricky, but I’ve seen it work to pretty good effect.

Perhaps, but if the low-stakes stuff e.g. campfire chats is completely cut out I think something is very much lost from a game.

Well, if you’re really into those kinds of scenes, I’m sure it is for you. I do enjoy those sorts of scenes, but I like to keep them brief. Also, the players don’t really need my help to get those kinds of scenes. They just kinda happen organically, and I let them go for as long as it seems like the players are getting something out of it. If I start getting the sense that the conversation has dead-ended and the players are just talking circles around the topic without knowing how to end it, I’ll nudge things along with a scene transition.

 

[iserith]

Is that the "Yes, and..." piece? If so, my question is this: how can a party ever come to the point of having to make a decision if opposing points of view cannot be put forward?

Keep in mind I'm reading your words as written, as that's all I have to go by, and what actually happens in play may be (and probably is) more relaxed. But as written, if for example someone in the party opens conversation with "I've heard about this place called the Sunless Citadel, let's go check it out", that commits the party right there to going to Sunless Citadel no matter what - nobody can oppose it. Tom can't say "Hey, what about this Tegal Manor place they mentioned down at the Mercenaries' Guild; that one caught my interest" becasue if he does, that's not a "Yes, and..." it's at best a "Yes, or...".

It's not that nobody can oppose it - it's that nobody would oppose it, except possibly on the level of the character displaying mannerisms (e.g. a grumpy character grumbles about it, but ultimately goes along). Presuming the initial idea wasn't somehow unreasonable, then you accept the idea for reasons you are free to establish and add to the plan any of your ideas in a way that doesn't negate the previously established ideas. Then off you go!

Even though you say it's informal, that's still far more formal than I ever imagine interatcions with friends as being.

It's no more formal than recognizing the need to share and doing that.

As you touched on already, there's a big difference between pickup/one-shot/convention games and long-term home games.

My discussion here is completely concerned with the latter, that are not usually time-limited in any hard and fast sense.

I think even a "long-term home game" benefits from some attention to its pacing.

 

[iserith]

Not familiar with stremed games, but what would your take be were the group to spend the session on an in-depth and fully in-character discussion around the campfire regarding the place of, say, Orcs in the world?

My regular group wouldn't do that because we would not find it to be a good use of our session time.

For me, this is every bit as much role-playing - and every bit as important in character development - as are exploration, combat, and social interaction with NPCs.

It's roleplaying. Maybe it's character development. But those things can happen in other, more engaging contexts in my view. Given the option, that's what we'll choose.

 

[Charlaquin]

RE: Yes, and: I think I might try adopting a looser version of this. Something like “when someone suggests a course of action, favor constructive contributions over destructive ones. Accept a suggestion and add to it, unless you have a compelling reason to do otherwise.” Not sure about the verbiage, but the basic idea being to encourage acceptance over rejection, without outright forbidding it.

 

[Xetheral]

My regular group wouldn't do that because we would not find it to be a good use of our session time.

It's roleplaying. Maybe it's character development. But those things can happen in other, more engaging contexts in my view. Given the option, that's what we'll choose.

I think this exchange is important. Pacing is a means to an end. You appear to value spending your session time on the content of an adventure, and prefer not to spend your session time on the IC deliberation of goals, IC strategic planning, or non-adventure-relatated inter-PC interaction. The pacing advice you gave in the OP is well-tailored to controlling pacing in a way that emphasizes how you and your group want to spend your session time.

I think pacing advice for a group that prefers to spend their session time on the game elements you're trying to demphasize would necessarily look very different. The good advice in the OP might be even more helpful if it explicitly acknowledged that it's intended for maximizing the amount of adventure content in each session, and that it comes at the cost of skipping over other types of IC interaction.