Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lia Nightdemon 01-20-08, 10:42 PM	I think D&D gives you too much time to think. In combat it's the worst. I larp (Live action roleplaying) alot more then D&D right now and I have found that the combat is a lot more realistic in terms of how much time you have to prepare if ambushed. If your wizard and you get rushed by NPCS and get beaten on your pretty much dead. (though you have at least 6-10 minutes before you actually take a death) The system of course addresses the issues that you will die more, encounters are a lot harder because there are 10-40 players and if you have no defenses and get hit by a weapon, spell, ability take it. Certainly the D&D rules are different but why are players allowed so much time to think about their actions? If you as the GM ambush your players shouldn't you give them only a few seconds to decide their actions before you continue with the initiative? May seem harsh but it will speed up combat. or have the characters take rounds to look at the combat situation to think. What do you think?
Grod_The_Giant 01-20-08, 10:47 PM	I think it is an unfair comparison. Our PCs are (fictional) trained professionals. They live in their world all the time, whereas we can only spend a few hours a week (at best) in it. Beren Terino the Sorcerer doesn't need to spend 10 minutes thinking of what spells he has prepared because he knows what spells he has in his mind. He knows what they do- that's what he spends his life studying. The fighter doesn't need time to think in combat, because he's trained enough to fight instinctively. To simulate the 'taken by surprise' part, we have surprise rounds, where the PCs are flat-footed and take no actions. There's no need to penalize the PLAYERS as well.
Chrono Nexus 01-20-08, 10:49 PM	I agree with you. But I don't play DnD to emulate reality/
Jaxgaret 01-21-08, 12:09 AM	I pretty much agree with Grod here. A) It takes more time to simulate reality through miniatures and flatboard environment than it does via RL-interaction in a LARP. And B) Players are not their characters. Sometimes it takes a bit of time for the player to decide what the character would do in a certain situation. If that means that some players take this time to resort to metagaming, that's their problem. There's no need to penalize other players who wish to roleplay their character faithfully.
SirGuru 01-21-08, 12:23 AM	I agree with what has been stated here. Most players that I play with aren't don't memorize everything their character can do, when to do it, actions he can take, spells he can cast and so on. The Character, however, would obviously know all that since he has spent his life do such things. I have found that setting a 1-2 minute limit per player (which in reality turns into 4-8 minutes if paying attention and preparing what they want to do during the other Players turn) is a good solution. There are exceptions of course but if they still haven't come up with something after that the DM just does a standard attack or other action that makes sense and moves on. Keeps things moving and that is the way I like it. It isn't a strictly enforced rule but it is when needed.
lulzapalooza 01-21-08, 01:50 AM	Darn it. This post just made me realize I'm a LARPer. I've known it for a long time, but I've been lying to myself. Crap, I'm going to have to tell my parents now. ME:"Mom, dad...I LARP..." DAD: "That doesn't have anything to do with the butt, does it?"
CryoSilver 01-21-08, 02:33 AM	I impose reasonable limits on turn length. Usually about 30 seconds.
Joe Khol 01-21-08, 07:00 AM	All LARP systems offer fewer options and alternatives than D&D (partly for this very reason) and you also have the advantage of *being* there and seeing what is happening rather than having it described to you. Also, the point of LARP is that you experience this first hand and react immediately. D&D (and table-top in general) is designed to be played different, in a more relaxed manner slightly more divorced from the action (though obviously *how* divorced depends on how you choose to play). In general, I don't think you can realistically compare the two. That isn't to say you've not got something of a point. I do think players shouldn't have all the time they want to look at the situation before deciding what to do but the time they do get should be based on it being a table-top game rather than and 'real life' or LARP comparisons.
kuonji 01-21-08, 07:45 AM	If I feel my players are taking too long to decide on an action, I'll just ask them to make a decision or they can choose to skip their action and spend their time thinking. I think that this sort of thing is up to the DM to monitor and each DM will likely vary in how much time they will allow.
Jaxgaret 01-21-08, 09:00 AM	If I feel my players are taking too long to decide on an action, I'll just ask them to make a decision or they can choose to skip their action and spend their time thinking. I think that this sort of thing is up to the DM to monitor and each DM will likely vary in how much time they will allow. This is a good compromise solution; if a player is taking too long (more than a minute or so of deliberation), give them a chance to decide, then treat them as if they Delayed their action and move on with Initiative order if they don't.
Eldritch_Lord 01-21-08, 12:05 PM	This is a good compromise solution; if a player is taking too long (more than a minute or so of deliberation), give them a chance to decide, then treat them as if they Delayed their action and move on with Initiative order if they don't. That's what I do. Delayed actions were a wonderful concept for speeding things along. "Can't decide? Take 5 counts and tell me then."
sblaxman 01-21-08, 03:36 PM	That's what I do. Delayed actions were a wonderful concept for speeding things along. "Can't decide? Take 5 counts and tell me then." I usually give players 1-2 minutes to make a move, if they don't then their character couldn't decide what to do and lost their action for the round (I have them do full-defense for the round)... I give beginners longer until they get the feel of the game, but I don't allow players to discuss what to do for 3 minutes between each round
aotrscommander 01-21-08, 06:12 PM	I play with mostly wargamers, so it's quite a tactical sort of game (especially with our solid and steadily increasing mechanical aptitude). I don't allow too long for the PCs to decide what to do, but I do allow a fair bit of latitude if the player needs to look up his spell/class ability (etc) to see if that things is feasible (the DM often needs to do the same); though the better players tend to do this while everyone else is taking their turn most of the time. I only tend to give the player a count down if it comes to their action and they don't know what they want to do on their action at all and look at me blankly (as usually this means they haven't been paying attention to the game and/or want to be told what to do). They are allowed to ask the other players for suggestions, provided they don't take all day about it. Basically, I really only come down on people who aren't trying very hard or are being indesisive. That said, my patience has limits, so you won't get yonks to look stuff up, though none of my current players reaches those very often.
sblaxman 01-21-08, 07:53 PM	I should agree with aotrscommanders comment, that, I do make exception if a player needs to look up something. A mage says he is casting a spell, but needs to look up the spells, I'll allow it, since the character would be assumed to know his spells, but the player may need to double check a description. Same for anything else (need to look up the effects of a wand, or some action... I don't try to be harsh, just to keep things moving best I can
Zombie_Babies 01-22-08, 02:32 PM	D&D and Larping are far too different to compare. In D&D the player (you) has a character. In a LARP, the player is the character. Sorta cuts out the "middle-man". Different games, therefore different reaction times are acceptible. That said, taking too long in D&D is relative as well. It depends on the type of game you play and how important the nuances of the combat scenes are. If combat is the emphasis then it will matter more. If battles are merely plot advancement devices where the conclusion is all but known from before the start, then not so much.
Shiftkitty 01-22-08, 03:34 PM	We've had to pause a game to LARP things just to see A) what sort of difficulties may arise from such an action, or B) if such a move were possible by any stretch of the imagination. Usually it was done if a player couldn't communicate well enough verbally what he or she wanted to do, or to settle a small debate. In one instance, a question of my PCs quickdraw skill came up. It was an Old West/Sci Fi crossover game, and my outlaw PC had a draw that couldn't be matched. It was also kinda fancy to go with his phenomenal trick shootin' skill. It was debated that the fanciness of the draw would slow the draw down, so I demonstrated with a holster and an old Star Wars Han Solo battery operated toy pistol. My challenger still screamed that the toy was plastic. A real pistol wouldn't spin the same way. So we agreed that if my father, a quick draw himself (and a hip-shot to boot!) could execute it swiftly and accurately, that my stats and technique would stand. I won, but I still don't see why it even went to a debate, since the stats were rolled legitmately. The same player also felt that the enemy with the samurai swords wouldn't be able to tag him, since his hellaciously huge broadsword had longer reach. I said that in the amount of time it would take him to bring that sword back around, he could be cut to ribbons. We just happened to have examples of the swords in question, so we softened the blades with bubble wrap and duct tape and went at it with our leather jackets for armor, torso and arm shots only. Neither one of us is what you'd call a swordmaster, and he tagged me a couple of times, but I scored far more hits, so the bonus was denied. FTR: Before you guys think we were ubergeeks like the roleplayers on "Reno 911!", we weren't. We were punk rockers. Our leather jackets had chains, handcuffs, and in my case, automotive tools as decorations. Gods, I wish I had a picture! (Hee hee! I still have the jacket! The tools have gone to more legitimate uses, though...)
lulzapalooza 01-23-08, 03:59 PM	FTR: Before you guys think we were ubergeeks like the roleplayers on "Reno 911!", we weren't. We were punk rockers. Our leather jackets had chains, handcuffs, and in my case, automotive tools as decorations. Gods, I wish I had a picture! (Hee hee! I still have the jacket! The tools have gone to more legitimate uses, though...) Sure. ;)
Kobajagrande 01-23-08, 04:10 PM	You know, if I came back from a (smoking, toilet, phonecall, eating, drinking) break and people tell me my character died because 10 seconds ago GM ambushed them and I wasn't there to say my character jumps into cover, the said GM would be an object of righteous wrath.
Salla 01-23-08, 04:11 PM	I think it is an unfair comparison. Our PCs are (fictional) trained professionals. They live in their world all the time, whereas we can only spend a few hours a week (at best) in it. Beren Terino the Sorcerer doesn't need to spend 10 minutes thinking of what spells he has prepared because he knows what spells he has in his mind. He knows what they do- that's what he spends his life studying. The fighter doesn't need time to think in combat, because he's trained enough to fight instinctively. To simulate the 'taken by surprise' part, we have surprise rounds, where the PCs are flat-footed and take no actions. There's no need to penalize the PLAYERS as well. WIN.
blodgett 01-23-08, 04:25 PM	I usually give the player a reasonable amount of time and if they're taking too long, then their character is spending the round thinking. I give more time to new players and less time to experienced players. I also tend to go to the new players last so they can A) see what every one else is doing and B) have more time to think. It's not fair to everyone else to make them wait. After they tell me what they're doing, then it's time to get out rule books if needed to find out what things do.
toucanbuzz 01-23-08, 04:36 PM	I bring a real sword to our gaming table. When a player's turn comes around, I methodically inch the sword closer to their belly saying "Better decide quick, the goblins are attacking..." I feel that this type of "real" pressure puts my players right in the middle of the action. Reaching for a Dorito during a battle? Would your character? No way! You can also use cans of hairspray and a lighter to simulate spellcasters, and in one case batteries to the tongue for shocking grasp. Sure, it's a pen and paper game, but who says it can't be more like the real world? Not me. :evillaugh Disclaimer: This poster does not condone nor encourage players to utilize the above methods for enhancing the game, and anyone who does so earns the title dumb-arse. It's a game at a table folks, and much like Monopoly, I'm not going to rifle through your wallet to take your cash to make the game conform more to reality and make you "feel" the loss. Take yer time folks.
Man in the Funny Hat 01-23-08, 06:38 PM	Certainly the D&D rules are different but why are players allowed so much time to think about their actions?Did you really just write this? Q: Why are players allowed so much time to think about their actions? A: BECAUSE D&D RULES ARE DIFFERENT. If you as the GM ambush your players shouldn't you give them only a few seconds to decide their actions before you continue with the initiative?No, because in D&D players are NOT their characters. Their characters are smarter, older, younger, stronger, weaker, more clever, but ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS are inherently superior in what they do than the players will ever hope to be. To inflict penalties or scorn upon players who for inexplicable reasons are NOT trained swordsmen, spellcasters, and whose combat experience in general extends to a slap-fight or two with someone in the 6th grade, is... well it's stupid is what it is. May seem harsh but it will speed up combat. or have the characters take rounds to look at the combat situation to think.D&D combat is TURN-BASED. Which is another way of saying it is inherently arranged such that actual time taken to resolve combat is IRRELEVANT. Look, it's one thing to have a player who doesn't pay attention and when his turn comes round spends 10 minutes trying to decide what to have his character do. It's another thing entirely to havea player who wants to look up a spell for specifics before he makes his decision only to have the DM say, "EEEEHHHHHNNNT! Times up. Your character obviously is wasting his time. Your turn passes and you do nothing so the Ogre stabs you for 18 points, killing you, and then violating your corpse! Isn't this realism FUN?!" I don't have anything particular against larps or those who enjoy them. But they are NOT D&D and D&D has NOTHING it needs to learn from them.
sheadunne 01-23-08, 06:44 PM	I think most players need MORE time trying to think of what they want to do, not less. Some of the stupidest things they think of. Bah. :)
Mock26 01-23-08, 06:48 PM	Hmmm, I think I smell regenerative properties here!