D&D General Two sessions in a row without combat...

[prabe]

I think @Ruin Explorer has something like the right of things, here. The stakes are high and the situation is complex; whether either of those is "too" is probably arguable, but the party clearly want to be careful here, for reasons that make sense to them. I don't think having another group accomplish this while the party dithers is necessarily bad, but I think I'd want to try to figure out why the party is dithering--especially if they haven't been the dithering sorts before now. It's probably worth finding out their understanding of the situation and the stakes, and seeing if there's been a communication problem somewhere.

At least one of the parties I'm DMing has spent multiple sessions doing research on things, if they had reason to be think the stakes were high and/or the situation was complex. Everyone had fun, so I didn't mind going a session or three without combat, but if people aren't having fun at your table (and you are a person at your table) then it's certainly a problem for your table.

 

[iserith]

The Table Rules in my games include a provision that deals with situations like this by short-circuiting the player debate phase and arguably would have gotten past the issue you experienced. The players buy into a situation where they say "Yes, and..." to each other. If someone makes a good faith suggestion, then now you say "Yes..." then add to the plan with "and..." in a way that doesn't negate or block which was already suggested. Once that goes around the table, the plan is put into effect.

Sometimes the plan works perfectly. Sometimes it is uncertain or comes with a cost. Other times it may fail. Which falls in line with most processes, I imagine, but without the debating that slows down the game and may frustrate some players.

Combine that with descriptive roleplaying (as opposed to first-person, active roleplaying) with fast adjudication for specific parts of the plan and you can really fly through the planning phases in a way that ensures everyone has their say and to get to the action and drama.

 

[Morrus]

I find that laughter, rather than combat, is the key element I need in my games.

 

[R_J_K75]

It's definitely not okay to just arbitrarily decide that the party fails, after spending a session planning, just because you, as the DM, wanted to do some combat which is literally the case here. That's abysmal behaviour. You should resign as a DM if you behave like that.

I'll reserve my right not to comment further on this.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'll reserve my right not to comment further on this.

Fair enough - but my key is your own motivation and truth to yourself.

If you truly had always envisioned another party beating them to the punch, and your motivation is simply versimilitude, I have no problem with it. But as noted, that's not the case here - the OP specifically said his motivation was boredom with a lack of combat (which, as DM, is essentially his own fault), and made no mention of another party working on the same plan.

If you indulge whims by essentially griefing the party because they didn't bash enough heads for your taste, as a DM, you're going down a bad path, and it doesn't end well. Be honest with yourself about the setup you had, and don't things like ruin an elaborate plan just to spite people (which it would be, in this particular case).

I mean, a DM has to cope with the fact that a party, from time to time, will not do what he/she wants. Sometimes for multiple sessions. If it's seriously bumming you out, tell the players, out-of-character, what's up. My experience is that they will be delighted to help. They will happily incorporate a big-ass fight into their plans, because most players really like combat! Just make the combat dramatic and fun. Swash those buckles.

But this sort of planning from PCs, this sort of extreme caution, this is a sign that the DM "scared them straight" as it were. Either that or they just came straight out of Shadowrun where this sort of thing is needed. Either way, if you want them not to it again, make things fun and crazy, not mean and unpleasant.

Have a load of stuff their plan didn't, couldn't have accounted for, that throws it in the air, but make that stuff fun, and stuff they can roll with. Next time their plan will probably be less elaborate.

 

[atanakar]

If I understood the OP correctly the players spent 8 hours planning something. Not 8 minutes, not 80 minutes. But 8 hours of precious game time. That is an excruciating long time and the OP is correct in being enervated (and bored) by this behaviour. I've never seen this in 40 years of DMing.

He obviously needs to revisit the social contract with his group at the beginning of the next session. If he cannot get this behaviour under control, claiming that the job was done by someone else is perfectly fine. Sometimes a slap on the hand is the only thing that works with some players.

 

[Quickleaf]

Oh, that was my last gaming group! If given as much time as they wanted, they could get so deep into recon and planning that they'd start losing track of what they were doing.

Here's what I learned to do: "You're planning to infiltrate the lizardfolk war camp to assassinate the lizard king and his hag advisor. You have 1 hour to plan – this represents the golden window before the lizardfolk scouts and the hag's magic start figuring out something is up. Here's the basic setup. Go! I'm setting a 1 hour timer. I'll warn you when you're 5-10 minutes away from the end of 1 hour. After that, we'll transition to executing your plan."

It totally nipped the over analysis & planning problem in the bud. And all the players were more focused and enjoyed themselves more.

 

[MichaelSomething]

When the PCs go to visit an NPC for information, they arrive just in time to save said NPC from a group of ninjas trying assassinate him/her for knowing too much! Roll initiative!

 

[Doug McCrae]

If I understood the OP correctly the players spent 8 hours planning something.

My reading is that it was 4 hours of planning.

The first one was good. It was filled with mystery, murder, and intrigue, and the players discovered a few things they didn't know before. I was really happy to pull that off. But the second session... It didn't need to be that way.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If I understood the OP correctly the players spent 8 hours planning something. Not 8 minutes, not 80 minutes. But 8 hours of precious game time. That is an excruciating long time and the OP is correct in being enervated (and bored) by this behaviour. I've never seen this in 40 years of DMing.

He obviously needs to revisit the social contract with his group at the beginning of the next session. If he cannot get this behaviour under control, claiming that the job was done by someone else is perfectly fine. Sometimes a slap on the hand is the only thing that works with some players.

As Doug said, you're misreading it. It's 4 hours at maximum. The DM made the last session before this combat-free. He thus literally encouraged them in the idea that this is fine. You can't accuse them of having a problem with the "social contract".

Jumping straight to "a slap on the hand" in this situation is just unacceptable behaviour from a DM. The players haven't even done anything wrong! And it certainly hasn't been communicated to them in any way, by the OP's account.

And we still haven't heard from the OP on why the players are acting this way, which is out of character for fantasy roleplayers (in-character for cyberpunk ones, admittedly). If the DM makes a whole session no-combat, and then makes something very high-stakes and "get it right the first time", then how can the players possibly be faulted for behaving this way?

Too many DMs just don't think about the "why" of things, and their role in creating situations that they might not like, and it means the solutions they come up with are often the wrong ones.