How would adding a house rule that makes the game go slower make the game go faster? 15 min between rounds?!? For me running 4e, that is about a dozen people at the table.
Split the group in half and run two games.
What to do when it's not your turn
- Thread starter Aberzanzorax
- Start date
Split the group in half and run two games.
Pseudopsyche
First Post
In my next campaign, I want to try a couple table rules that I hope will better engage players during others' turns. (I call them table rules, since they don't meaningfully change the mechanics of the game.)
First, players roll all the dice. If a wizard fireballs the party, each player rolls his or her Reflex defense, much as they would roll saves in 3E. Similarly, after I move and announce attacks for a dozen minions, the attacked players make AC rolls and describe the outcome. This way, plays roll more dice when not their turn, instead of sitting around and watching other people roll dice.
Second, players are responsible for tracking conditions that end on their turn. So if a player hits with Lance of Faith, it's her responsibility to remind her ally to apply the +2 bonus. If you like, think of this as Lance of Faith giving her a one-use free action triggered by the ally's next attack against the target. If the cleric forgets to apply the bonus during the turn, it doesn't happen, the same as though she declined to take an opportunity action. The same would apply to negative conditions applied to enemies. The player is responsible for reminding me that the hobgoblin is stunned or whatever.
First, players roll all the dice. If a wizard fireballs the party, each player rolls his or her Reflex defense, much as they would roll saves in 3E. Similarly, after I move and announce attacks for a dozen minions, the attacked players make AC rolls and describe the outcome. This way, plays roll more dice when not their turn, instead of sitting around and watching other people roll dice.
Second, players are responsible for tracking conditions that end on their turn. So if a player hits with Lance of Faith, it's her responsibility to remind her ally to apply the +2 bonus. If you like, think of this as Lance of Faith giving her a one-use free action triggered by the ally's next attack against the target. If the cleric forgets to apply the bonus during the turn, it doesn't happen, the same as though she declined to take an opportunity action. The same would apply to negative conditions applied to enemies. The player is responsible for reminding me that the hobgoblin is stunned or whatever.
Mark Chance
Boingy! Boingy!
I do this using a set of rules that I am playtesting. I find it not only helps keep the players a bit more focused, but it also moves a lot of work out of my hands and into the hands of others.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Why? It's an issue that spans all editions to some extent.
The first problem is the strict turn-based system: I do my thing and then I wait for everyone else to do theirs, in robotic order. It's not as easy to fix in either 3e or 4e, but in earlier editions it was possible to have everyone state their actions for the round and then resolve them as they would logically play out based on - but not slave to - initiative. For example, say my action for a round is to do nothing but move. In strict turn-based, when my turn comes up I move, almost like a teleport "I'm here, and now I'm there", and I'm done. But in a more free-form system my character is actually in motion for the whole round (if I-as-player really want to be involved I could be moving my mini each segment to reflect this), and if something happens at a given place during the round my guy may or may not be in its way depending where he is. The key is to divorce your combats as much as you can from the strictness of the turn-based system.
Spells: re-introduce casting times. You start on your initiative (say, 16) but you might not finish until init. 11; during which time you'd better pay attention as you might get interrupted - never a good idea.
Re-roll initiative each round.
And if all else fails, pull out a beer and cheer the team on!
Lanefan
howandwhy99
Adventurer
Suggest using a Caller instead of individual Turns.
Rounds and Turns are still going to be used, at least in D&D, but by using a Caller to communicate with the referee a group gains enormous benefits:
First, no one has down time. Sure, every player engages in the standard practice of communication, listening, then speaking in turn, but that is outside of the game rules. This is down-and-dirty group communication without rules beyond each individual needing to spend the same "in-game" time period as the others via the Caller.
Second, each person gains an advantage by having the others in the group as allies. Planning and working together means players can coordinate their actions instead of bumbling in different directions. By electing to operate as a team actions in the game becomes easier and more likely to end in success.
Third, far more players can be accommodated in the player group. The suggested average of twenty players may be a little much, but not out of bounds by any means. I can only suggest using a Caller as the normal means of play to experience why immediate involvement is available for everyone, while game play actually speeds up. Compared to the 1-on-1, Player-to-GM format it is a hare to a tortoise.
Fourth, independent play becomes the exception, not the norm. Private notes and independently playing the game are still common in my experience with Caller play, but these add to the mystery of each player, PC, and the game. It means there is information your fellow players know, but you may not, and vice versa. These can also add to the level of distrust between players, but group cooperation isn't a requirement for play either. It's just rewarded. Deciding when to share and when not to is a nice feature that doesn't necessarily go away because of the use of Caller.
Rounds and Turns are still going to be used, at least in D&D, but by using a Caller to communicate with the referee a group gains enormous benefits:
First, no one has down time. Sure, every player engages in the standard practice of communication, listening, then speaking in turn, but that is outside of the game rules. This is down-and-dirty group communication without rules beyond each individual needing to spend the same "in-game" time period as the others via the Caller.
Second, each person gains an advantage by having the others in the group as allies. Planning and working together means players can coordinate their actions instead of bumbling in different directions. By electing to operate as a team actions in the game becomes easier and more likely to end in success.
Third, far more players can be accommodated in the player group. The suggested average of twenty players may be a little much, but not out of bounds by any means. I can only suggest using a Caller as the normal means of play to experience why immediate involvement is available for everyone, while game play actually speeds up. Compared to the 1-on-1, Player-to-GM format it is a hare to a tortoise.
Fourth, independent play becomes the exception, not the norm. Private notes and independently playing the game are still common in my experience with Caller play, but these add to the mystery of each player, PC, and the game. It means there is information your fellow players know, but you may not, and vice versa. These can also add to the level of distrust between players, but group cooperation isn't a requirement for play either. It's just rewarded. Deciding when to share and when not to is a nice feature that doesn't necessarily go away because of the use of Caller.
Aberzanzorax
Hero
In regards to the "house rules forum" I considered that, but as stated this does have to do with every edition of the game (if it matters, I was mainly thinking 3e, but I recognize it for all the others as well).
Some great suggestions so far!
Some great suggestions so far!
Similar Threads
