Would there a any way we can resolve a round in 6 second?

[With a box]

... to play a real-time D&D.
obviously we can't bookkeeping by hand in time.
should we give some bonus thinking time to high int characters?

[Red Fel]

... to play a real-time D&D.
obviously we can't bookkeeping by hand in time.
should we give some bonus thinking time to high int characters?

It depends on the players. Players who are prepared can declare their actions and roll their dice promptly. Players who aren't prepared will take more time. That's just the nature of the beast.

I've heard - on this forum, no less - about DMs who impose time limits. Fail to declare an action and roll your dice within a window, you pass, and combat moves on without you. Your mileage may vary.

I think giving bonus "thinking time" to high-Int characters is a bad idea. While I recognize that high-Int characters should theoretically be more tactically-minded, and probably smarter than their players (I mean, have you met players?), giving them more time gives a substantial advantage to those who use Int - basically, yet another advantage for casters. (But see Warblades, Warders.) If we're doing that, should we also be giving advantages for other ability scores?

[Kesnit]

For a multitude of reasons, no.

1) Not everyone can go at once. This is the biggest issue. If the battle was real, the Fighter can swing and the Wizard can cast simultaneously. At the table, though, this leads to chaos since...
2) Player/DM interaction is required. Sure, the Barbarian can roll attacks and damage at once (saving a few seconds), but if the caster casts a spell with a save, the player has to tell the DM what the spell is, what save to roll, and what the DC is. The DM has to look up the monster's save and roll it. The more casters there are, the slower this process becomes.
3) Math takes time. I have a PC that, when she rolls damage, rolls 1d8+6d6+5. Just adding up those dice takes more than a few seconds.
4) Situations can change. A player can have their next action planned out, but if something happens to change the battle right before the player's turn, their planned action goes out the window. For example, WIZ1 was going to cast Black Tentacles to keep the minons away from the party. But Cleric1 goes before WIZ1 and casts Greater Command, sending all the minions fleeing. Now there is no point in Black Tentacles, so WIZ1 needs to come up with something else to do.

[Telonius]

In higher-level combat, a time limit could (could) get harder on melee characters, just for the fact that they have more attacks to resolve. (Yes, Druids and summoners tend to take more time as well). All the buffs that the Wizards and Clerics have set up have to be remembered and calculated, and you do need a bit of time to think tactically. The end result would be: "Let's make the game harder for someone who plays a melee character, and give the Wizard's player more time to figure out how to break reality in two." I don't think that's a good thing.

[Flickerdart]

Let's change the situation for a second.

You are at an intersection in New York. Around you are maybe 10 people, there are about as many on the other side of the road. The light you want is red; the light that's the other way is still green. There are 5 cars coming one way, and 3 the other, all at various speeds and distances. One of the cars is a bus, and you see a turning indicator; you are able to deduce that when the bus turns, it will block the street for the other cars, requiring them to stop and letting you cross unimpeded if you time your jaywalking just right.

This is a typical situation that a pedestrian can get an idea of in about 1 second.

How long does it take you to read that? What about out loud? What about if you had to roll Spot checks to see the cars and turning lights, gauge their speeds, check your character sheet for things like movement speed?

A player will never have the situational awareness of his character, and a DM will never be able to transmit information as quickly as an eye could take it in.

You want 6-second turns? Play chess.

[SinsI]

Look into computer versions of D&D. It won't be 6 seconds for the round since everyone has to do their actions sequentially, but 6 seconds per player/monster is possible.

[heavyfuel]

I've heard - on this forum, no less - about DMs who impose time limits. Fail to declare an action and roll your dice within a window, you pass, and combat moves on without you. Your mileage may vary.


We had to do this once, with a player that would take literally minutes to state his action due to him not paying attention to the game and not writing his bonuses down. Everyone had 30s to state all actions, roll, add, and say the result. It was enough time for all of us, except him, who missed his turn quite often.

It can work with a decent enough time window, but really, 6 seconds is way too short, especially when you take free and swift actions into account. It's worse still if your players like to roleplay their actions instead of simply speaking and rolling the dice.

[PsyBomb]

6 seconds to declare your first action is reasonable if you expect players to be REALLY on the ball, 30 for a completed turn if you're willing to make exceptions for things like Counters, AoOs, or other actions/reactions coming off-turn from other players.

[VisitingDaGulag]

For a multitude of reasons, no.

1) Not everyone can go at once. This is the biggest issue. If the battle was real, the Fighter can swing and the Wizard can cast simultaneously. At the table, though, this leads to chaos since...
2) Player/DM interaction is required. Sure, the Barbarian can roll attacks and damage at once (saving a few seconds), but if the caster casts a spell with a save, the player has to tell the DM what the spell is, what save to roll, and what the DC is. The DM has to look up the monster's save and roll it. The more casters there are, the slower this process becomes.
3) Math takes time. I have a PC that, when she rolls damage, rolls 1d8+6d6+5. Just adding up those dice takes more than a few seconds.
4) Situations can change. A player can have their next action planned out, but if something happens to change the battle right before the player's turn, their planned action goes out the window. For example, WIZ1 was going to cast Black Tentacles to keep the minons away from the party. But Cleric1 goes before WIZ1 and casts Greater Command, sending all the minions fleeing. Now there is no point in Black Tentacles, so WIZ1 needs to come up with something else to do.
Sequentially:
Players roll all the die variant.
Prerolls + electronic rollers
Backup plans

30 seconds per is reasonable.

[Tvtyrant]

6 seconds per person is reasonable with the following qualifiers:

Every player is a GitP optimizer with expert knowledge of the rules.

You don't include descriptions of what is going on in the timing (IE you describe everything, then they hit the clock to start).

There are no rolls made in combat. Pre-generated d20 rolls that are revealed whenever there is an action taken, and damage is averaged.

[Kesnit]

Sequentially:
Players roll all the die variant.
Prerolls + electronic rollers
Backup plans

30 seconds per is reasonable.

The question was if a full round could be done in a total of 6 seconds.

[Jack_Simth]

... to play a real-time D&D.
obviously we can't bookkeeping by hand in time.
should we give some bonus thinking time to high int characters?

Short answer is: No.

Long answer is: Not as tabletop, nor with good adjucation of less standard actions. It'd be possible to set something like that up if, say, you were playing something like Neverwinter Knights on your own server (as the computers are doing everything beyond picking the actions to queue, including rolling attack rolls and comparing to AC, rolling spell damage, checking SR, and checking Saves, et cetera). However, as it's a computer doing everything, it can't adapt to funny things like "I cut the rope of the chandelier to drop it on the bad guy" or "I pick up the barrel and throw it at him" (unless those possibilities were specifically planned in advance for the scenario).