I have a dream [Archive] - Wizards Community

I have a dream [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Hell-ish-Thang
05-13-05, 08:24 PM I have a dream; i dream about the day my PCs would take it a bit more realistic; it seems that its only realistic when they gain something from it. In all of my battle encounters my PC take an eternity deciding what are they going to do; but in game world they are acting almost simultanesly, giving them no time for more than three words chit-chat. I have tried to regulate this, but it seems useless...

Can someone take pity on me?
Krevon
05-13-05, 08:29 PM If you have to, put out an egg timer and when the bell digs they are doing what they've decided or standing there indecisevly.
Gurv
05-13-05, 09:00 PM Can someone take pity on me?
I figure that the players have plenty of time to see what is going on around them while the others and the bad guys are taking their actions. If they are not paying attention to what is going on well enough to decide what to do in about 10 seconds, then they don't deserve to get a turn.

Of course, if they have a reasonable question, or need to figure something out (like the range to a foe for the purpose of range penalties), then a delay is reasonable. But prolonged discussion between players, careful calculation of a spell's area of effect, etc...they just get skipped under the assumption that it is taking the PC extra long as well.

(When I say careful calculation of a spell's area of effect, I don't mean to declare the result. I mean the 2 minute calculation to aim a fireball so that it hits as many foes as possible while missing other PCs by a single square. You want to throw a fireball, you point where you think it should go just like the spellcaster has to and hope you aimed right. Then figure out who gets hit).
James Silverleaf
05-14-05, 05:33 AM Originally posted by: Krevon
If you have to, put out an egg timer and when the bell digs they are doing what they've decided or standing there indecisevly.

I think this is a good idea, if the PCs are standing there talking in my campain, i simply says (as an example): "The large warforged with the great axe is charging you, you have 3 seconds to apply. 1. 2. 3. SLAM"
If they havent decided to do any actions by then, to bad, then they don't get a turn.
Or i say, "roll initiative", then i give the players time to describe the action they are doing, not all the fixfax they are going to do, simply the basic fact like "I ready my spear against the charging warforged"... and so on.

This gives the players time to think their actions over when the other players are taking turns, and when the turn comes to you, you have a couple of secnds to react, as a player, not your character
Hell-ish-Thang
05-14-05, 09:08 AM But they are two Player Characters, so they usually handle one or two mobs and i decide really fast on what to do; usually previous to battle, so they have little time to thing on the other ones actions; they also tend to develop a complete plan in question in the round for the whole encounter, that usually they change because it didint work; or they will go on for minutes saying stuff like "Hmmm... Sleep or Magic Missile? Or maybe True Strike? Or do we flank em?".... and five minutes later they decide to just attack with a ranged weapon,...

I think ill give em a sixty seconds clock or something... Or is that too much??
PoeticJustice
05-14-05, 10:54 AM I'm not trying to criticize, only help, but I can tell what your problem is simply by reading your post. Simply asking Players to "take it a bit more realistic" isn't enough. You've got to get them to suspend their disbelief before they'll submit to anything.
Try subtracting one from their initiative score for every ten seconds they wait after an initial period of one minute + (intelligence modifier in seconds). Make encounters that reward coolly sizing up the situation, such a duel, and then contrast it with a heated battle in which instant reaction is the key.
Gurv
05-14-05, 11:13 AM I think a minute is a little long. Although there are tons of things that a character could do during a combat round, it usually boils down to a few options. Although you might be able to come up with some extremely clever thing if given a few minutes, that is exactly the kind of thing you don't have time to come up with in the middle on combat. The characters don't have enough time to discuss things between rounds, other than a quick "flank this guy with me" or "I'll cast fireball once everyone is clear". Allowing discussion about complex tactics just isn't possible during a single round (not to mention that doing so allows intelligent foes to side-step any plan they overhear).

I would give a little more leeway to a character with a chart-topping Int or Wis score, since the character is likely smarter or more aware than the player himself and should be coming up with better plans in six seconds than the player can in fifteen. And letting a player look up a rule to see if something should work when it pertains to something the character would certainly know is another reason for taking a little extra time. But otherwise allowing a player to go "Uh....hmm...I dunno, I think I should...but then again..." means that the character is likewise being inefficient.

I would say thirty seconds, on the outside, unless there is a good reason that the player really needs to figure out something his character would automatically know and act upon.
garner_adam
05-14-05, 03:13 PM If it's getting bad at my table I used the dreaded forced delay rule :eek: . Simply if a player is taking too long to make a decision then they're considered to be delaying their initiative. Which inspires quicker decision making but doesn't take their turn from them.
Sarlax
05-14-05, 05:00 PM I also used the Forced Delay. I push the PC's initiative back by 5 if he can't decide. I don't say, "You have 20 seconds to decide," since the players don't think the way PCs do. The PCs are highly skilled warriors, killers, and spellcasters. The players can't make precision targetting decisions with fireball the way their PCs are able to, nor do they intuitively know the best sequence for attacking a group of enemies the way a PC fighter should, so I make allowances for that.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the DM should be deciding as fast as the players do. It's unfair to make the PCs decide in a fixed amount of time if the DM is often taking longer.
Gurv
05-14-05, 09:37 PM Another thing to keep in mind is that the DM should be deciding as fast as the players do. It's unfair to make the PCs decide in a fixed amount of time if the DM is often taking longer.
True, that.

I think the forced delay method may be the best way to go. Just skip a player who can't decide and go to the next in the initiative. Then go back to the indecisive one (dropping his initiative accordingly) and see if he is ready...if not, go to the next initiative and so on. If he doesn't manage to come up with something by the time his initiative rolls around again, then he got skipped fairly.

I run a fairly large group (eight...I plan on splitting them tomorrow) so I know the pain of a 5 minute combat round. I have one player taking forever to explain whatever overly complex scheme has entered his mind, another who doesn't know what is going on unless it involves his own character, and others who don't seem to retain the rules from one game to another. In order to keep things moving, you have to work at it constantly, and if that means someone gets skipped because they don't know what to do, then that is the chaos of battle.
drasticale
05-14-05, 11:55 PM Being a player, mostly. I can tell you how I perceive it. I've argued both sides of this tiff once or twice each, and it doesn't get any easier to deal with it, unless you are firm.

Here's a hint... Start letting the players know that the characters that you play aren't omnipotent, and they won't think so much into their own combats. If a player knows that you as a DM are going to take into account every ability and item that character has, and find a way to circumvent it, then he is going to think long and hard. Every battle will be drawn out, and theorized indefinitely. But, when you truly let yourself forget what your characters have, and act like the NPC enemy would, combat starts clicking... because it becomes reaction, and not a strategical composium.

You attack, they counterattack.

Basically, just say... You guys can get your strategies together amongst yourselves until your turn comes up.

When I DM, when it is someone's turn, I expect that person to be talking to me, and not someone else. The time I give for strategy, since these groups have probably talked strategy over campfire, (And since WF were made for war) and the groups are combat hardened for the most part, is the time I am telling them what happens, and in between their responses of "It didn't hit that AC", or "How much damage did it do?". I figure that gives them the time they need to react, and it simulates chaos in battle, because not only do they have to deal with coming up with something; they have to deal with what I am saying, and expecting them to reply back.

When I play, I get so totally irked by someone yelling at me to hurry up with a decision. You have to remember something... your players are "playing". This isn't time that *I* want to spend <normally> tense. (There are occasions.)

My two Galifar.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Hell-ish-Thang 05-13-05, 08:24 PM	I have a dream; i dream about the day my PCs would take it a bit more realistic; it seems that its only realistic when they gain something from it. In all of my battle encounters my PC take an eternity deciding what are they going to do; but in game world they are acting almost simultanesly, giving them no time for more than three words chit-chat. I have tried to regulate this, but it seems useless... Can someone take pity on me?
Krevon 05-13-05, 08:29 PM	If you have to, put out an egg timer and when the bell digs they are doing what they've decided or standing there indecisevly.
Gurv 05-13-05, 09:00 PM	Can someone take pity on me? I figure that the players have plenty of time to see what is going on around them while the others and the bad guys are taking their actions. If they are not paying attention to what is going on well enough to decide what to do in about 10 seconds, then they don't deserve to get a turn. Of course, if they have a reasonable question, or need to figure something out (like the range to a foe for the purpose of range penalties), then a delay is reasonable. But prolonged discussion between players, careful calculation of a spell's area of effect, etc...they just get skipped under the assumption that it is taking the PC extra long as well. (When I say careful calculation of a spell's area of effect, I don't mean to declare the result. I mean the 2 minute calculation to aim a fireball so that it hits as many foes as possible while missing other PCs by a single square. You want to throw a fireball, you point where you think it should go just like the spellcaster has to and hope you aimed right. Then figure out who gets hit).
James Silverleaf 05-14-05, 05:33 AM	Originally posted by: Krevon If you have to, put out an egg timer and when the bell digs they are doing what they've decided or standing there indecisevly. I think this is a good idea, if the PCs are standing there talking in my campain, i simply says (as an example): "The large warforged with the great axe is charging you, you have 3 seconds to apply. 1. 2. 3. SLAM" If they havent decided to do any actions by then, to bad, then they don't get a turn. Or i say, "roll initiative", then i give the players time to describe the action they are doing, not all the fixfax they are going to do, simply the basic fact like "I ready my spear against the charging warforged"... and so on. This gives the players time to think their actions over when the other players are taking turns, and when the turn comes to you, you have a couple of secnds to react, as a player, not your character
Hell-ish-Thang 05-14-05, 09:08 AM	But they are two Player Characters, so they usually handle one or two mobs and i decide really fast on what to do; usually previous to battle, so they have little time to thing on the other ones actions; they also tend to develop a complete plan in question in the round for the whole encounter, that usually they change because it didint work; or they will go on for minutes saying stuff like "Hmmm... Sleep or Magic Missile? Or maybe True Strike? Or do we flank em?".... and five minutes later they decide to just attack with a ranged weapon,... I think ill give em a sixty seconds clock or something... Or is that too much??
PoeticJustice 05-14-05, 10:54 AM	I'm not trying to criticize, only help, but I can tell what your problem is simply by reading your post. Simply asking Players to "take it a bit more realistic" isn't enough. You've got to get them to suspend their disbelief before they'll submit to anything. Try subtracting one from their initiative score for every ten seconds they wait after an initial period of one minute + (intelligence modifier in seconds). Make encounters that reward coolly sizing up the situation, such a duel, and then contrast it with a heated battle in which instant reaction is the key.
Gurv 05-14-05, 11:13 AM	I think a minute is a little long. Although there are tons of things that a character could do during a combat round, it usually boils down to a few options. Although you might be able to come up with some extremely clever thing if given a few minutes, that is exactly the kind of thing you don't have time to come up with in the middle on combat. The characters don't have enough time to discuss things between rounds, other than a quick "flank this guy with me" or "I'll cast fireball once everyone is clear". Allowing discussion about complex tactics just isn't possible during a single round (not to mention that doing so allows intelligent foes to side-step any plan they overhear). I would give a little more leeway to a character with a chart-topping Int or Wis score, since the character is likely smarter or more aware than the player himself and should be coming up with better plans in six seconds than the player can in fifteen. And letting a player look up a rule to see if something should work when it pertains to something the character would certainly know is another reason for taking a little extra time. But otherwise allowing a player to go "Uh....hmm...I dunno, I think I should...but then again..." means that the character is likewise being inefficient. I would say thirty seconds, on the outside, unless there is a good reason that the player really needs to figure out something his character would automatically know and act upon.
garner_adam 05-14-05, 03:13 PM	If it's getting bad at my table I used the dreaded forced delay rule :eek: . Simply if a player is taking too long to make a decision then they're considered to be delaying their initiative. Which inspires quicker decision making but doesn't take their turn from them.
Sarlax 05-14-05, 05:00 PM	I also used the Forced Delay. I push the PC's initiative back by 5 if he can't decide. I don't say, "You have 20 seconds to decide," since the players don't think the way PCs do. The PCs are highly skilled warriors, killers, and spellcasters. The players can't make precision targetting decisions with fireball the way their PCs are able to, nor do they intuitively know the best sequence for attacking a group of enemies the way a PC fighter should, so I make allowances for that. Another thing to keep in mind is that the DM should be deciding as fast as the players do. It's unfair to make the PCs decide in a fixed amount of time if the DM is often taking longer.
Gurv 05-14-05, 09:37 PM	Another thing to keep in mind is that the DM should be deciding as fast as the players do. It's unfair to make the PCs decide in a fixed amount of time if the DM is often taking longer. True, that. I think the forced delay method may be the best way to go. Just skip a player who can't decide and go to the next in the initiative. Then go back to the indecisive one (dropping his initiative accordingly) and see if he is ready...if not, go to the next initiative and so on. If he doesn't manage to come up with something by the time his initiative rolls around again, then he got skipped fairly. I run a fairly large group (eight...I plan on splitting them tomorrow) so I know the pain of a 5 minute combat round. I have one player taking forever to explain whatever overly complex scheme has entered his mind, another who doesn't know what is going on unless it involves his own character, and others who don't seem to retain the rules from one game to another. In order to keep things moving, you have to work at it constantly, and if that means someone gets skipped because they don't know what to do, then that is the chaos of battle.
drasticale 05-14-05, 11:55 PM	Being a player, mostly. I can tell you how I perceive it. I've argued both sides of this tiff once or twice each, and it doesn't get any easier to deal with it, unless you are firm. Here's a hint... Start letting the players know that the characters that you play aren't omnipotent, and they won't think so much into their own combats. If a player knows that you as a DM are going to take into account every ability and item that character has, and find a way to circumvent it, then he is going to think long and hard. Every battle will be drawn out, and theorized indefinitely. But, when you truly let yourself forget what your characters have, and act like the NPC enemy would, combat starts clicking... because it becomes reaction, and not a strategical composium. You attack, they counterattack. Basically, just say... You guys can get your strategies together amongst yourselves until your turn comes up. When I DM, when it is someone's turn, I expect that person to be talking to me, and not someone else. The time I give for strategy, since these groups have probably talked strategy over campfire, (And since WF were made for war) and the groups are combat hardened for the most part, is the time I am telling them what happens, and in between their responses of "It didn't hit that AC", or "How much damage did it do?". I figure that gives them the time they need to react, and it simulates chaos in battle, because not only do they have to deal with coming up with something; they have to deal with what I am saying, and expecting them to reply back. When I play, I get so totally irked by someone yelling at me to hurry up with a decision. You have to remember something... your players are "playing". This isn't time that I want to spend <normally> tense. (There are occasions.) My two Galifar.