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

[Prakriti]

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?

If Tom's character doesn't want to embark on the adventure, then Tom rolls up a new character who does.

 

[Lanefan]

If Tom's character doesn't want to embark on the adventure, then Tom rolls up a new character who does.

So Tom's character isn't allowed to try and convince the rest to go on his adventure instead?

 

[Reynard]

Five years or so ago, I ran a game for some WotC forum regulars including @Bawylie via text on Roll20 with the goal of creating a transcript of actual play. (I thought example play was sorely lacking in the new edition.) At the time, I received a number of comments and messages that indicated that we covered more content in 2 hours of text-based play than their groups could in 4 hours of regular play. I was somewhat thrown by this. How could this be? I had definitely been in pickup games where it was terribly sluggish, but text play is frustratingly slow compared to voice and I hadn't considered exactly what we were doing to make things so much faster.

Some years later (and many games with many different groups later), I've pinned this to some table rules that I've been employing for years now to great effect. None of these are new ideas, but they really do make a difference in the game experience if everyone at the table buys in. Here are a few of those table rules specifically geared toward making things smoother and faster. My players are asked to read, agree to, and implement these rules.

"Goals of Play. We are here to have fun and to create an exciting, memorable story together. We will choose our actions accordingly. If it's not fun and/or does not help create an exciting, memorable story, don't do it."

This most important of table rules, which is just a restatement of what the PHB says, cuts down the Set of All Possible Actions to the Subset of Fun, Exciting, and Memorable Actions which makes it easier for players to decide what to do. It also means that there are fewer disputes at the table since, presumably, there are shared values on what is fun, exciting, and memorable (otherwise we wouldn't be playing together). Giving direction on the sorts of choices players are expected to make means getting to the action quicker with less debate. Getting to the action quicker means the group covers more content per session.

"Bold Adventurers Only. We will play characters who want to go forth and confront deadly perils for reasons we can establish. Then during our precious session time, we'll play as if there is no tomorrow, living the sort of adventuring life that we can brag about later."

This table rule means that we don't have to spend time convincing Tom's character to go on a quest when the Call to Adventure is heard. It means that we don't have to spend time on shopping or running mundane errands or the sort of upkeep and management that is best done in my view expediently and only as necessary. This doesn't mean we lose out on roleplaying; rather, we spend time on the roleplaying that actually matters and eschew the stuff that doesn't.

"Pay Attention. When the spotlight is on me, I will act immediately. My turn is for acting, not for thinking about what to do."

When players understand that each of them acting efficiently as individuals benefits both themselves and their group, you will tend to see players stepping up to resolve their turns quickly. The faster everyone's turns go, the faster their turn comes back around which means they don't actually have time to look at their phone or wander away from the table. They have to be paying attention and thinking about what to do so they can act, being nimble enough to change course if something happens just before their turn. Framing this as a benefit to the player is the best way to sell this in my experience - more content per session means more XP and treasure. Their efficiency benefits them personally. And who doesn't like that?

"Say What You Do. I'll say what my character wants to do by stating a clear goal and approach - what the character hopes to achieve and what he or he does to achieve it. Questions aren't actions, nor are requests to make ability checks. The DM calls for checks, not players."

Clarity of communication is important when playing a game that is basically just a structured conversation. When players understand their role in this conversation and how to make succinct yet reasonably specific action declarations, then things go smoother and play proceeds faster. There are fewer misunderstandings, the DM finds it easier to adjudicate their actions, and the group can get to resolving those actions right away without a lot of back and forth. This also avoids the problem of "20 Questions" play wherein a player asks a litany of questions before actually taking an action (only to botch a roll after 5 grueling minutes of questioning, ugh). If they state a simple goal and approach, there is no need for questioning, provided the DM has adequately described the environment including the basic scope of options. And if they put their actions in terms of goal and approach rather than asking to make an ability check, the DM doesn't have to in turn question the player about what the character is actually doing or, worse, assume or establish what the character is doing, which isn't the DM's role and can lead to disputes if the player does not agree with the DM's characterization. If players get this part right, there is a remarkable impact on how smooth play goes!

"Keep Things Moving. I'll do this by saying "Yes, and..." to my fellow players. When a reasonable idea is proposed, I'll accept it ("Yes...") and add to it ("and..."). I won't shut down other people's ideas or try to tell other people how to play their characters unless they ask for help. It's discouraging to others and slows the game down."

This table rule short-circuits time-wasting player debates which can ruin a session both in terms of progress and relationships. We've all seen this before: A player offers an idea, someone poo poos it, no progress is made, repeat. Eventually the barbarian just rushes in and the debate was not only pointless but everyone's annoyed now. If players instead accept the idea and add to it, not only is the person who came up with the idea happy, but the player who accepted it gets to add their say. The next person then accepts that idea, which makes that player happy, and they get to add their part. And so on. By the end of the interaction, which can be remarkably short before the plan is ready to execute, everyone's happy and eager to see if their collaboration will pay off. When you do things this way, even shy players become more vocal because they know they're in an environment where their ideas are likely to be heard and embraced. This is a win all around. It's only a loss to players who love crapping on other peoples' ideas during play. And frankly, who even wants that kind of person at the table? (Not me.)

So these are a few of the things that my groups do. As a result, we absolutely run circles around many other groups in terms of quality and quantity of content per session. What other tips do you have for smoother, faster play?

I wish I had read this a few hours ago. I don't agree with it all but it definitely helps me understand your position in that other thread.

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.

 

[Charlaquin]

all in the interest of saving time which is, in the end, a nigh-boundless resource provided you're healthy and not ancient.

My dude, time is the only resource that is absolutely finite and can never be recovered once lost.

 

[Bawylie]

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).

Yeah, I’ve played in 2 or 3 of Iserith’s games in the (8?) years I’ve known him. I rarely play online. But I 100% vouch for his claims as to quality. His sessions are (nearly) as good as mine!

But in terms of content, pacing, and fun - Iserith is on the mark and not exaggerating. I’ve never felt subjected to group-think or otherwise stifled and (despite my own objections to Yes, And playstyles that echo Lanefan’s points) it simply wasn’t the case that the first player to talk dominated all courses of action.

The imagined pitfalls and red flags didn’t show, in the handful of games I played. They were through and through excellent experiences. Well-crafted, well-run, and good fun.

 

[Prakriti]

So Tom's character isn't allowed to try and convince the rest to go on his adventure instead?

Depends. If it's an open-world, sandbox campaign where the DM has prepared two or more adventures, then sure. But if everyone sat down to play Sunless Citadel, and Tom's character wants to wander off to Waterdeep and explore Undermountain, then it's time for Tom to retire that character and roll up a new one -- one that has a reason to explore the Sunless Citadel.

 

[Charlaquin]

As usual, @Lanefan, I disagree strongly with most of what you said, but this:

• 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

Is excellent advice.

 

[Reynard]

I think this list of tools sounds perfect for convention games and one short or short, focused campaigns. Having group buy in and focus is especially important in these circumstances. I think ongoing games with well known participants can relax a little and play more organically.

 

[robus]

I want to turn this into cards to give to players as a reminder once things get underway. Great list and thanks for posting it!

 

[Nebulous]

I occasionally play with one player who is NEVER ready on his turn. It's not uncommon for him to spend two or three minutes (feels like longer) figuring out what he wants to do, figuring out how that action works and what dice are required, finding those dice, etc. Some of it seems to be decision paralysis, or fear of doing less than the perfectly optimal thing, and some of it seems to be confusion about what his character's abilities and options are. Even if he's playing a Champion Fighter. He's not a new player, so it's not like the rules are (or should be) foreign, though.

It's so egregious that I sometimes wonder if it's the result of some kind of cognitive disorder (otherwise normal, intelligent guy), so I don't want to impose a rule where you take the Dodge action if you don't state your move within X seconds. (And for the same reason I refrain from screaming, "DUDE GET YOUR $%!&ing $&*% TOGETHER!", even though sometimes I want to.)

And, for some social reasons I don't want to specify, I can't exclude him from the game.

Ideas?

That's rough. I had a player like that last year, and she was the girlfriend of a player. She too suffered from terrible decision paralysis where any potential move was the wrong one, thus she never knew what to do. She wasn't having fun, she seemed to hate the game and be there, and after three sessions she withdrew. I had talked to her partner about it and said if she's not having fun she doesn't need to be here. Please, it was ruining my enjoyment too, having an angry person there.

I don't have good advice for your situation, I'm sorry. It would be best if the player wasn't there, as I doubt their mindset will change and it could well be cognitive disorder.