Time Limit on planning?

[Kotenkiri]

My PCs has a tendency to go for ridiculous long times discussing how to do an encounter, they spent about 5 minutes discussing how to attack a giant fire beetle nest after aggro-ing them and this is short discussion by the measure. They often repeat these long discussions in the middle of these encounters, its mostly just 2 of the 4. The other 2 have actually gone off to get food while this is happening, which increases the delays.

While I'll give them all the time if they're planning how to tackle a castle, i feel like giving them the same thing at the start of every encounter with every goblin is too much so I want to impose a time limit to encounter that started.

What do you think is a rough good time limit to keep the game flowing?

Edit: I have brought it up several times. they (being old friends) go with "we're not talking that long" or "we'll remember next time".

[holywhippet]

One problem with imposing a time limit is a separation between the characters and the players. As adventurers the characters would have experience in forming rapid tactical plans. The players? Not so much. I'd give them maybe 3 minutes to work out an overall tactical plan to reflect the experience of the characters. After that, give them one minute for each characters turn. If they haven't finished, or at least declared their actions then their turn is over. If they want to adjust their plan they can do it as each character is having their turn.

[SodaQueen]

I've found that a time limit is usually unnecessary and causes it's own problems. Just talk to your players and tell them they can't take so much time planning mid combat. If they want to plan in advance, great! But it's slowing down the pace of combat too much.

Remind them that it's apparently boring the other players too, since they're leaving the table because the delay is so long.

[leogobsin]

A thing you might try out is not have a general time limit, but explain to players that if you feel they're taking too long to plan you'll start a minute timer and they have to start acting when that timer runs out.

[Lunali]

The rules I've generally played with allowed relatively long amounts of time to decide what you're doing, but discussion is limited to about 6 seconds per turn. (supposed to be 6 seconds per round, but not enforced that way unless leeway is abused) This doesn't include OOC time to help new players understand possible options as long as it doesn't turn into an actual discussion of tactics.

[SodaQueen]

The rules I've generally played with allowed relatively long amounts of time to decide what you're doing, but discussion is limited to about 6 seconds per turn. (supposed to be 6 seconds per round, but not enforced that way unless leeway is abused) This doesn't include OOC time to help new players understand possible options as long as it doesn't turn into an actual discussion of tactics.I like this!

[SiCK_Boy]

I would not time them or threaten them with a time limit either.

You need to identify why the behavior is problematic, explain it to the player, see if they agree, and then find a solution that works for everyone.

The players leaving the table during the planning session would be the main thing I would look at. Are they leaving because they are bored? Or because they feel they can’t contribute? Maybe they enjoy these planning breaks because it allows them to eat or go to the bathroom without interrupting the flow of the game!

As for you as a DM, why does it bother you? Personnally, I enjoy all the breaks I can get where players discuss amongst themselves. But I don’t set significant pressure on myself to get to a certain point in a given session; if the playes are taking it slow, there’s another session in two weeks, so I’m fine with it.

If it’s just a matter of pacing for you, make it clear to the players. “I think having a time limit will increase the fun and the pressure you feel in combat, as the encounter will go faster and be more tense.”

Maybe the players will agree and ask for a timer. But don’t impose it against their will.

[Kotenkiri]

I would not time them or threaten them with a time limit either.

You need to identify why the behavior is problematic, explain it to the player, see if they agree, and then find a solution that works for everyone.

The players leaving the table during the planning session would be the main thing I would look at. Are they leaving because they are bored? Or because they feel they can’t contribute? Maybe they enjoy these planning breaks because it allows them to eat or go to the bathroom without interrupting the flow of the game!

As for you as a DM, why does it bother you? Personnally, I enjoy all the breaks I can get where players discuss amongst themselves. But I don’t set significant pressure on myself to get to a certain point in a given session; if the playes are taking it slow, there’s another session in two weeks, so I’m fine with it.

If it’s just a matter of pacing for you, make it clear to the players. “I think having a time limit will increase the fun and the pressure you feel in combat, as the encounter will go faster and be more tense.”

Maybe the players will agree and ask for a timer. But don’t impose it against their will.

We at most get a session once a month, about 6 hours sessions if lucky. We don't meet in person, we're playing online and we're all over the place geographically with erratic timetables. They leave their computers sometimes for life needs but mostly because the 2 enter loops of discussions.

[SociopathFriend]

Generally speaking one of my DMs will wait through something like a minute or two of planning before silently raising his hand and starting to count down from five. The players have until then to acknowledge the countdown and provide some semblance of plan or they've taken too long and the enemy gets a free turn. You can make a battle plan AS you take your turns- talking is a free action. You can make plans on the fly without bogging down the entire game.

Sitting around and doing nothing as you plot about how to fight your enemies is a luxury you would NOT have in reality. In a sports game you can call an audible on the field, you don't plan out every action and reaction before you yell, "HIKE".

[JoeJ]

My general rule is that whenever the players are taking time to discuss anything, so are their characters. If it's happening during an encounter, the NPCs may or may not be inclined to just stand there and listen.

[LordEntrails]

My general rule is that whenever the players are taking time to discuss anything, so are their characters. If it's happening during an encounter, the NPCs may or may not be inclined to just stand there and listen.
This is my general philosophy as well.

Saying the characters would have more tactical knowledge than the players is... If they are asking about mechanics, or figuring out if a dagger would break down a stone door, sure, they get that time free. But planning tactics and strategy? Nope.


So then I just started throwing in random encounters. They'd be discussing things for a few minutes and I'd just ruin all their well thought out plans by have something wander by... After that, things didn't take so long any more. Problem solved.
And then this is how I solve it. The NPCs act. The goblins fire their bows and take their turns. A crocodile swim up and attacks. Whatever.

[Lombra]

If initiative has already been rolled, say:"the monsters attack as you keep talking"

"But we weren't discussing in-character!"

"Well, the 13 points of damage that I just rolled think otherwise"

It should be enough to make them consider the problem.

If they plan ahead tho, listen to their plan, and when you feel enough time has passed, say:"you concluded that *plan* is the best course of action, you are now approaching the *encounter place*"

"What? We didn'yet agree-"

"You did. Roll initiative"

Sudden things are the stuff that wake people, you shouldn't need to repeat these after the first time.

[ShadowImmor]

If initiative has already been rolled, say:"the monsters attack as you keep talking"

"But we weren't discussing in-character!"

"Well, the 13 points of damage that I just rolled think otherwise"

It should be enough to make them consider the problem.

If they plan ahead tho, listen to their plan, and when you feel enough time has passed, say:"you concluded that *plan* is the best course of action, you are now approaching the *encounter place*"

"What? We didn'yet agree-"

"You did. Roll initiative"

Sudden things are the stuff that wake people, you shouldn't need to repeat these after the first time.

This may run into the problem that the players then feel they don't have a choice or the chance to discuss at all, though I think some limits should be in place, though saying "too bad you were talking they enemies got a free hit." will make your players feel like they can't discuss ANYTHING OoC lest you drop a fight in their lap.

My suggestion for the OP is speak to your players, ALL of them at once. Say it's eating too much game time, and that since you get to play so rarely you want everyone to get the most out of the whole time.

If they ignore you and keep doing it then you need to have a serious talk. I would begin by politely reminding them that they only have about 6 seconds to talk during their turn (as while it's a free action they can't talk much). They can plan before they attack, but once they're in the fight, that's it.

If the are doing all of this before the fight starts, then there's not that much you can do. I would perhaps plan out your own tactics, maybe even prepare to make a couple of rolls for the things their fighting to see if the enemies can come up with a counter tactic (probably Insight maybe using Int instead of Wis though?, and only if the opposing force is comprised of Intelligent Creatures). Use the time to write notes and prepare things, but do ask them periodically if that's their final plan, and make them aware of the time left on the session.

Or, alternatively, do discuss saying you have 30 real time minutes to make your plan, then after that the fight starts.

Also I would look at how often they follow their plans, as if they're not following them, then what's the point in making them? Perhaps you can get them to do more planning on the fly.

A few combat encounters they CAN'T plan for outside of actual combat is a good idea. They get ambushed, if they want to discuss tactics on their turn they can do so, but they can say at most a sentence or two. I would specifically enforce they do this AFTER their actions. That way if they start talking longer you can just cut them off and say it's the next persons turn.

Though the most important thing is talking to the players and discussing with them to help manage their expectations.

[Pelle]

Yes, as others say, talk to them. If all players enjoy spending the wole session discussing their plan for one combat, let them continue to that. If some players are bored however, use that as leverage when the characters are not in a stressful situation, and would have all the time they want.

For situations where the characters are in a stressful situation, I find it works ok to just move the action along gradually, allowing some time for discussion, but not waiting for it to finish.

Spend too much time deciding what to do on your turn in combat? The next persons start going, let us know when you have decided and you'll get your turn.

You see some riders far off, they haven't seen you yet, what do you do?
Long discussion without anyone taking initiative -> It looks like they have seen you and are heading your way, what do you do?
Long discussion without anyone taking initiative -> They are getting closer, looking like hostile heavily armed knights and they will reach you soon, do you do anything first?
Long discussion without anyone taking initiative -> They are lowering their lances and charging, roll Initiative!

As long as the players feel that they fairly got the chance to do something, but didn't react themselves, it's ok to be pushed. If you say "while you are discussing, let's do this characters turn" before actually doing its turn, they get the chance to jump in and decide on something. If you just say "this character attacks you" without warning them that their time is up, they feel they didn't get the chance (although they have spent a lot of time not doing something). I find the reason is often that they expect that they should be allowed to hit pause like in a video game and come up with a strategy, and then return to the game where they left it. You just have to explain that that doesn't work when there are other people playing that are ready and bored, and the assumption will be that when the players spend time discussing, the characters also spend some time.

[ShadowImmor]

Yes, as others say, talk to them. If all players enjoy spending the wole session discussing their plan for one combat, let them continue to that. If some players are bored however, use that as leverage when the characters are not in a stressful situation, and would have all the time they want.

For situations where the characters are in a stressful situation, I find it works ok to just move the action along gradually, allowing some time for discussion, but not waiting for it to finish.

Spend too much time deciding what to do on your turn in combat? The next persons start going, let us know when you have decided and you'll get your turn.

You see some riders far off, they haven't seen you yet, what do you do?
Long discussion without anyone taking initiative -> It looks like they have seen you and are heading your way, what do you do?
Long discussion without anyone taking initiative -> They are getting closer, looking like hostile heavily armed knights and they will reach you soon, do you do anything first?
Long discussion without anyone taking initiative -> They are lowering their lances and charging, roll Initiative!

As long as the players feel that they fairly got the chance to do something, but didn't react themselves, it's ok to be pushed. If you say "while you are discussing, let's do this characters turn" before actually doing its turn, they get the chance to jump in and decide on something. If you just say "this character attacks you" without warning them that their time is up, they feel they didn't get the chance (although they have spent a lot of time not doing something). I find the reason is often that they expect that they should be allowed to hit pause like in a video game and come up with a strategy, and then return to the game where they left it. You just have to explain that that doesn't work when there are other people playing that are ready and bored, and the assumption will be that when the players spend time discussing, the characters also spend some time.

I'm going to agree completely with this. The last paragraph particularly, Pelle has articulated it better than I did. Players don't like NOT being able to do things, so just saying "You're taking too long here's some damage for your troubles." will lead to your players leaving. You could even do something like they get a sword swung at them but it just misses, to try and bring the fact that a fight is LITERALLY HAPPENING IN FRONT OF THEM to the forefront of their mind.

But mostly, it's an OoC issue, no an IC one. You don't want to blur the lines too much if you can avoid it by having an IC solution to what is fundamentally an OoC problem. Otherwise they'll potentially start using OoC things to affect IC problems, like using Google to look up the solution to the problem you just gave them (I admit that is at the extreme end but even so).

[darknite]

I'll let a group do some planning for a few minutes. But if it's starting to grind, with only a couple people really interested in continuing or getting anything out of it, I'll let them know it's time to wrap up.

[Laserlight]

They're free to plan, develop tactics and codewords, etc, offline or out of combat. In one campaign, if we said "Option!" it meant that my character would grab and pin the target, then my superstrong buddy would attack it. But once you're in the fight, you're in the fight. "Five, four, three, two, one, you dodge, next is Bob."

[Glorthindel]

My attitude to planning is that, as players, we abridge time quite a bit, so a bit of allowance needs to be made for the time we don't see. We don't roleplay the evenings spent sitting around a camp fire, and the days on the road, all time when the characters would be realistically discussing tactics and techniques, sparring, and discussing the abilities displayed by monsters they have encountered.

So when an event occurs, I kinda allow the party to flashback to one of those evenings, and have the discussion they likely would have had about what to do in this (or similar) instance. I only allow this for things that realistically could have been discussed, and the discussion must remain "in general", not about the specific instance (so usually specific positioning discussions are out).

As an example, in my Dark Heresy campaign, when the sniper wanted to fire into a melee combat involving an ally, I ruled that this was definitely the sort of thing that would have been discussed at an earlier time. This allowed the party to discuss in broad strokes when such a move would be acceptable, but not directly discussing the specific situation (meaning the sniper would still have to adjudicate the final decision in this instance). They were allowed to outline what would and wouldn't be acceptable in their opinion - one character specifically declared he would never be happy for the sniper into a combat he was involved in, but another stipulated only if he was clearly outnumbered by skilled melee combatants (being a melee specialist himself, he was clear that being outnumbered by normal mooks was not cause to fire).

I find this hits a nice middle ground - the players can't bog down too much talking about the specifics of the current situation, but don't feel like you are punishing them by not allowing them to discuss things that the characters would definitely have done (but the players haven't yet).

[Tanarii]

The rules I've generally played with allowed relatively long amounts of time to decide what you're doing, but discussion is limited to about 6 seconds per turn. (supposed to be 6 seconds per round, but not enforced that way unless leeway is abused) This doesn't include OOC time to help new players understand possible options as long as it doesn't turn into an actual discussion of tactics.


My general rule is that whenever the players are taking time to discuss anything, so are their characters. If it's happening during an encounter, the NPCs may or may not be inclined to just stand there and listen.I use both these "rules". But IMO you have to get the players on board. I've had players quit my campaign because they didn't like feeling pressured in combat. In my case, that's not a disaster, since I have tons of players and they're free to find another gamestore DM that runs games the way they like. But in a home game I'd say you need to make sure all the players are on board. And by the sounds of the OP, they wouldn't honestly be on board with a 6 second time limit, and player discussions being mirrored as PC discussions.

On the last one, Angry had a great article:
http://theangrygm.com/through-a-glass-darkly-ic-ooc-and-the-myth-of-playercharacter-seperation/

[DrowPiratRobrts]

My general thoughts on combat (I've experienced these as a DM and a PC and liked them):

1. Make combat more deadly/unique with fewer enemies/HP. This helps keep things fast-paced and tense without having a simple fight last more than an hour.

2. Try to link combat to the story if possible, unless your group just really really loves pointless grinding by going up against random herds of owlbears in the forest.

3. Allow your PCs to discuss tactics in combat OOC since they would have to discuss these things outside the game or during RP time otherwise, and nobody wants that. If they want to communicate something really complex in the middle of a fight that they might not have a standard game plan for, use your judgement. They may or may not be able to depending on the context.

4. If your group takes a particularly long time making decisions, talk to them about adding a timer for turns. 1-3 minutes should be plenty of time if everyone knows how to play (this also encourages players to know what they can and can't do, which is always preferred). If their turns take longer as they gain more and more abilities this is okay. As long as they're acting and not contemplating they can go over their time limit.

P.S. If they run out of time I recommend having them take a normal attack and movement, not taking their turn away.

5. If you're changing the way you run combat, tell your players why and give them the chance to voice their thoughts. Even if there's push back, feel free to try anything for a session with the promise that you won't ruin the story or kill their characters just because the rules changed.

6. Display the initiative (at least for the party). If you want to wait until after the first round that's fine, but it's generally helpful to know when your turn is coming in relation to everyone else.

7. Consider with your group using the alternate initiative where enemies go in any order then PCs go in any order (or vise versa depending on who won initiative).

[Tanarii]

1. Make combat more deadly/unique with fewer enemies/HP. This helps keep things fast-paced and tense without having a simple fight last more than an hour.I typically run 4-6 enemies for a group of 4-6 players, plus henchmen. Medium fights take ... I think about 20 minutes. Deadly fights might take 30 minutes.

Controlling pacing, especially players taking forever to make decisions, allows you to have fast-paced and tense fights without them being boring solo fights. D&D 5e doesn't handle fights with less than 3 enemies very well unless you've got a small group of PCs.


3. Allow your PCs to discuss tactics in combat OOC since they would have to discuss these things outside the game or during RP time otherwise, and nobody wants that. If they want to communicate something really complex in the middle of a fight that they might not have a standard game plan for, use your judgement. They may or may not be able to depending on the context.I disagree. Discussing combat tactics PRIOR to combat is exactly what they should be doing, and IMX players love 'planning' a combat, then having to figure out on the fly how to execute and deal with things not going right. (Edit: and it makes ambushes and other combats that you don't have time to plan much in advance, other than general tactics, far more scary.)

Also, this suggestion goes directly against your idea that combat should be fast-paced and tense. Nothing kills combat pacing like allowing players to discuss tactics during a fight "OOC".

[DMThac0]

I have been running big groups (6 players avg) for a LONG time, discussions can become very time consuming with groups like this. I ended up with a very simple philosophy and course of action that seems to keep things going at a decent pace:

Are the players in/starting combat?
No: Let them talk it out, there's nothing immediate to worry about.
If they start to talk in circles I will interject and give a summary of what they've discussed. It tends to help them see what's been said clearly and a decision seems to be reached shortly there after.

Yes: Let them talk it out, but narrate the urgency of the situation.
Point out that the opponents are getting closer, point out that they're taking tactical maneuvers, have the unseen opponents flank, etc.
When they start to talk in circles I call initiative, it breaks the conversation and reminds them it's combat.
If they continue to talk I remind them of my house rule: Only 6 words when it's not your initiative and if you talk enough it will count as your action.
After the reminder I do another round of "setting up" with narrative, making the urgency even more apparent.
If no decision is made by the time this is finished, I simply ask: what are you doing? and force them to make a decision.

By this time they've had long enough to see many sides of the situation. By giving them all that information and time to discuss they generally don't feel slighted by the question and prompt. In total I'd say there's about 5 minutes I give to discussion before I step in and start to poke at them to resolve the issue. With the house rule, every party I've run has found it fair and have used it to great success.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

I typically run 4-6 enemies for a group of 4-6 players, plus henchmen. Medium fights take ... I think about 20 minutes. Deadly fights might take 30 minutes.

If this is the case then you're playing with exceptional players who are always on task. I've never heard of a unicorn group this amazing. I think there are many DMs and Players alike that couldn't imagine taking down more than 6 enemies in 20 minutes.



I disagree. Discussing combat tactics PRIOR to combat is exactly what they should be doing, and IMX players love 'planning' a combat, then having to figure out on the fly how to execute and deal with things not going right. (Edit: and it makes ambushes and other combats that you don't have time to plan much in advance, other than general tactics, far more scary.)

Also, this suggestion goes directly against your idea that combat should be fast-paced and tense. Nothing kills combat pacing like allowing players to discuss tactics during a fight "OOC".

I agree with planning a specific combat beforehand. It takes creativity and helps all players utilize their strengths. But I'm referring to general tactics. If you're familiar with chess, think about tactics in that context with me. These are typically short series of forced moves/trades to accomplish a goal or reach a favorable position. I'm certainly not talking about 10+ minute discussions or anything like that.

Example: The Bard falls unconscious. OOC the party quickly decides who's responsible for picking him up and what the others will do to focus on protecting the two/drawing aggro. We continue with initiative.

I don't want them having to come up with a spreadsheet of contingency plans listing, "If X, then Y" for every situation. So I'm fine with them talking OOC (more than their 6 seconds worth) if they need to iron out some of those things that a normal adventuring party would have time to discuss over months or years of traveling together. Does that make sense? I think your counter-points are helpful here to clarify what I mean.

[Pelle]

Does that make sense? I think your counter-points are helpful here to clarify what I mean.

That makes more sense, yes. I have never found it working very well to use strict time limits, like 6 seconds. It's never the exact measure of time that is important, it is the feeling of dragging time out. So in this case, if players are quick to determine a tactic, without arguing in circles or not committing to a decision fast, it's unproblematic to me. It doesn't feel like it takes time. It's when players didn't pay attention, have analysis paralysis and can't decide, or there are too many people discussing and no one who wants to take leadership, that you need to move the action forward. If it feels slow, move on.

And I often need more than 6 seconds myself as the GM since I can't prepare all the monsters moves during the players' turns...

[stoutstien]

Is all comes down too the experience of the players. Table talk and mid-battle planning is perfectly fine for newer players but as they grow more experience you're going to have to form some kind of reason for them to make more quick decisions. But the timing should different scenario to scenario such as your example with the fire Beetle fire tubules are slow nor do they speak any language so yeah mid-battle planning sparkly fine because the beetle can't understand them.
Fighting a group of Bandits on the other hand l, would gladly over here your battle plans and switch their tactics accordingly since you're shouting across the field at each other. This increase the powers of things like thieves cant or unusual languages.
Falling off a cliff yeah you only got a few seconds to figure out we're going to do grab a ledge, cast a spell, try to lasso a rope over branch, ext.
To summarize, yes you can adapt 6 second rule but don't do it suddenly let them ease into it. Also the better be a reason for the time restraint.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Fighting a group of Bandits on the other hand l, would gladly over here your battle plans and switch their tactics accordingly since you're shouting across the field at each other. This increase the powers of things like thieves cant or unusual languages.


I think the OP is primarily concerned with OOC planning in the midst of combat though. So the bandits wouldn't overhear much of what's being discussed if I'm not mistaken about his party's situation.

[Armored Walrus]

Good stuff

All this is pretty much how I run it. Players can do this stuff in all situations, not just combat. They can be in the middlel of a conversation with a town guard and then spin off into a discussion about how to handle the conversation. I just have the NPC interrupt with some contribution of their own, or tap their foot, or any little thing to remind them that they are standing next to a town guard, talking about him.

It's pretty similar to AngryGM's Through a Glass Darkly (http://theangrygm.com/through-a-glass-darkly-ic-ooc-and-the-myth-of-playercharacter-seperation/) approach, if you feel like reading a couple thousand more words on the subject.

[JoeJ]

I think the OP is primarily concerned with OOC planning in the midst of combat though. So the bandits wouldn't overhear much of what's being discussed if I'm not mistaken about his party's situation.

I think his position, and certainly Angry's, is that there is no such thing as OOC planning. If the players are having a discussion, then their characters are having the same discussion. It might not be exactly the same words (a mention by a player of a computer game would equate to some other appropriate cultural reference by the character), but they are saying essentially the same things.

The players are warned not to say anything in front of another player (including the DM) and then expect that player to pretend they didn't hear it.

[Darth Ultron]

I'm in big favor of time limits.

During combat, or any action, it is six seconds.

For other times, it is five minutes.

I find ''discussions'' that go past the five minute mark or so just go aimlessly around and around on the same topics, over and over and over again.

Though I also require:

-The player(s) must know the rules. A player is free to look up something, with in the time limit. But the game will not be put on pause while a player looks up ''that rule they kinda sort of think they remember reading''. I encourage players to print out the rules they need on cheat sheets...and really in 2018 this is so easy.

-The players are forbidden from asking if something ''might work'', as the answer will always be ''maybe''. Some players need this note as a sign right in front of them at the table, but so be it.

[stoutstien]

Past basic movement in action rules everything else falls in the realm of the DM. Unless you are hearing to rules as written strictly a player should be able to ask you if you can do something because the rules don't cover every action they couldn't the book would be a thousand pages long in different ways to open doors.

[Darkbru]

As a dm this would get on my last nerve. The issue I have with the situation a that the player aggroed the beetle then decided to make battle plans. If my players were doing that I’d silently count to 10 it my head and then have the next player act. If it’s happening too much I may even have additional monsters join the fight and get a surprise round in before joining initiative. Battle plans are okay, but to take advantage of the fact that combat stops is a jerk move. It’s very easy to act on your turn and shout commands or suggestions to your team. I know it’s a game, but that would make it feel more realistic.
Conversely, if they had snuck in and noticed the beetle and decided to quietly plan their attack before aggroing it then I’m fine with that. Again, I’d try to make it a little more realistic and have the creature behaving as it would normally. So if that means it was walking through the room it would continue to do so while they planned.

Just my 2 cp

[Ivor_The_Mad]

As a DM if I feel that the situation calls for it then sometimes I put on a timer or stopwatch to speed them up. In my opinion if it is something like deciding which path to go in a dungeon or deciding which lever to pull I give them as much time as the want (within reason) If it gets out of hand and it becomes a problem just have Tiamat attack ;) or put them on a time limit for 1 min then say something like a goblin hoard comes along and stumbles upon you. Just think up an excuse for them to move quick if you feel the need.

[Xetheral]

If this is the case then you're playing with exceptional players who are always on task. I've never heard of a unicorn group this amazing. I think there are many DMs and Players alike that couldn't imagine taking down more than 6 enemies in 20 minutes.

A large factor in combat length is the chosen tactics. If the apparently-losing side desperately tries to avoid death as long as possible (e.g. Dodge action, constantly dashing to full cover, fighting retreats, etc.) a battle can double or triple in length. If the losing side surrenders when things start to look bad, fights can end much more quickly.

That being said, my experience lines up with yours. Combat rarely takes less than 20 minutes unless the PCs decide to attack something that isn't even remotely challenging, and so takes under 5 minutes to resolve--oftentimes a single action is enough.


I will advocate for giving the players more time to discuss options when the stakes are high, because well-thought-out plans can make for very memorable moments. For example, in an old 3.0 game a PC druid found itself grappled by all four tenatcles of a Mind Flayer. The Mind Flayer's turn was immediately after the Druid's, so he had only a single chance to save himself before his brain was automatically extracted. I let the players discuss options for more than 20 minutes, and they came up with one of the best plans I've ever seen: the Druid wildshaped into a Portugese Man o' War, which has no brain to extract and is horribly toxic (technically it's not a single organism, and thus not eligible for wildshape, but whatever--a jellyfish would have worked too). It remains one of the most memorable moments from any of my games, far moreso than the Druid's death would have been had they not had time to scheme up an escape.

[GlenSmash!]

My PCs has a tendency to go for ridiculous long times discussing how to do an encounter, they spent about 5 minutes discussing how to attack a giant fire beetle nest after aggro-ing them and this is short discussion by the measure. They often repeat these long discussions in the middle of these encounters, its mostly just 2 of the 4. The other 2 have actually gone off to get food while this is happening, which increases the delays.

While I'll give them all the time if they're planning how to tackle a castle, i feel like giving them the same thing at the start of every encounter with every goblin is too much so I want to impose a time limit to encounter that started.

What do you think is a rough good time limit to keep the game flowing?

Edit: I have brought it up several times. they (being old friends) go with "we're not talking that long" or "we'll remember next time".

I used to have this problem. It mostly stopped when I took a different approach to how I set up scenarios.

After I describe the scene instead of just letting the party talk or asking them collectively I ask a specific player "What do you do?" At first it really surprised my players, but as they got into it, they stopped talking about plans and just described what their character would do. Then I proceed to the next player who might do their own thing, but more often the not would build on what the previous player said.

It's really cut down on the endless back and forth of planning, and sped up my game in general.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

the Druid wildshaped into a Portugese Man o' War, which has no brain to extract...

At first I thought you were talking about the ship and I was like, "But, but...wow 3.0 really was crazy different from 3.5" and then it hit me.

[Resileaf]

At first I thought you were talking about the ship and I was like, "But, but...wow 3.0 really was crazy different from 3.5" and then it hit me.

I can imagine the discussion with an exasperated GM.

"So my druidic abilities allow me to shapeshift into a plant, right?"
"Yes."
"And a tree is a plant, right?"
"Yes."
"And a ship is made of trees, which are plants, right?"
"I will murder you and your entire family."

[DrowPiratRobrts]

I can imagine the discussion with an exasperated GM.

"So my druidic abilities allow me to shapeshift into a plant, right?"
"Yes."
"And a tree is a plant, right?"
"Yes."
"And a ship is made of trees, which are plants, right?"
"I will murder you and your entire family."

Yeah, pretty much! hahaha

[Kotenkiri]

example from last session:
15x Fire Beetles vs 4 level 6 PCs
Warlock: "Should I use Hunger of Hadar?"
Cleric: "What about scared Flame?"
Warlock: "Maybe i can use blast instead since i should have advantage"
Cleric: "You should use Hunger to get rid of most of them and just wait it out"
Warlock: "Hunger of Hadar uses a spell slot dude"
Cleric: "then just blast them"
Warlock: "but there's so many of them, they'll swarm us"

. . . . 10 minutes later
Warlock: "Fine i'll use eldritch blast." *Talks to GM first time since iniatitive was rolled "I have advantage right? since I can see them and they can't"
GM (me) *stop watching chromcast* : "HUh? no, they're fire beetles, they make their own light and know you're there"
Warlock : "But I have *blank ability* and 120ft vision"
. . . 5 minutes later of "arguement" Warlock ignores rule 0
Warlock "Fine I'll eldtrich blast the fire beetle"

Last two PCs returns to computer with food or drinks "We're starting?"

[stoutstien]

How old are are the players ish?

[JoeJ]

example from last session:
15x Fire Beetles vs 4 level 6 PCs
Warlock: "Should I use Hunger of Hadar?"
Cleric: "What about scared Flame?"
Warlock: "Maybe i can use blast instead since i should have advantage"
Cleric: "You should use Hunger to get rid of most of them and just wait it out"
Warlock: "Hunger of Hadar uses a spell slot dude"
Cleric: "then just blast them"
Warlock: "but there's so many of them, they'll swarm us"

. . . . 10 minutes later
Warlock: "Fine i'll use eldritch blast." *Talks to GM first time since iniatitive was rolled "I have advantage right? since I can see them and they can't"
GM (me) *stop watching chromcast* : "HUh? no, they're fire beetles, they make their own light and know you're there"
Warlock : "But I have *blank ability* and 120ft vision"
. . . 5 minutes later of "arguement" Warlock ignores rule 0
Warlock "Fine I'll eldtrich blast the fire beetle"

Last two PCs returns to computer with food or drinks "We're starting?"

Paraphrasing from Angry GM:

You've described the situation and everybody has rolled for initiative. Point to whomever goes first. "Sir Justin, three beetles are running directly toward you. The closest is 15 feet away. What do you do?"

Sir Justin's player either tells you what they're doing or asks a question to clarify something about the situation they don't understand. If they can't do either of those immediately, then Sir Justin dodges this turn and you go on to the next player: "Ayesha, there are two beetles heading your direction, 20 feet away. What are you doing?"

Of course, fair is fair. Any time you can't immediately say what a monster does on its turn, it dodges.

[Beelzebubba]

When they're talking about various capabilities they have, and how those might usually work in a given situation, I like it. It's how they learn their characters, and develop better teamwork. Over time, those talks tend to get shorter and shorter.

When it turns into a debate, and there's back and forth, that's when it gets into strange territory - like, they are playing to 'win the game' rather than playing as a character would in a given situation based on their traits and capabilities. We have a 'group charter' that says we're about character not optimization, so that's when I nudge them with a 'C'mon, you wouldn't have time for that. Nothing's perfect, someone make a move, do what your character would do' and then they usually do.

[Tanarii]

When they're talking about various capabilities they have, and how those might usually work in a given situation, I like it. It's how they learn their characters, and develop better teamwork. Over time, those talks tend to get shorter and shorter.
Why aren't they making plans before a life and death situation when something is trying to chew their face off? That seems like an odd time to tell the enemy "excuse me for a moment, my allies and I must discuss our possible responses to this situation".

I mean, they're spending game time either way. Ask them to spend 10 minutes at the beginning of a session kibitzing strategies while you set up your stuff, instead of doing it when the game is supposed to be at its most tense.

Specific plans for specific situations with advance warning can be discussed before entering the fray. Although it's not a good idea to do it when the enemies are very nearby.

Ambushes and situations with no warning are now scary. You can't make specific plans and have to fall back on preplanned responses and how well you know each other.

The only downside is some players don't enjoy feeling too rushed. IMO it's a style of gaming that generally has upsides, but if players don't like fast paced combat and planning ahead and executing under pressure, then you're not going to be able to sell it to them.

[Beelzebubba]

Why aren't they making plans before a life and death situation when something is trying to chew their face off? That seems like an odd time to tell the enemy "excuse me for a moment, my allies and I must discuss our possible responses to this situation".

Because, half of my table are completely new - not only to D&D, but to pencil and paper RPGs. They're barely wrapping their heads around the potential of the game, let alone making complex plans.

I see no need to force them to obey the pace that someone on the internet seems to demand. The process of thinking through the problem is fun for them. Watching the lights 'go on' about the game is fun for me.

When they're ready for fast-paced planning, they'll start doing it.

Some people on this board need to remember how it was when D&D was bewilderingly new.

[Kotenkiri]

My Party are mix of experiences, only one can really be called a newbie to D&D but as a monk, he just defaults to punch, kick, radiant sun bolts until dead. Other 3 have done Out of the Abyss, several adventures before that. TBH my issue are ones who started when 3.5e was current edition, one with 4e, who go over their sheets with fine tooth cones for options. If i had to place blame, its they were given all the time to draw out full blown battle plans while they met weekly and stuff but that has changed since then.

[Amdy_vill]

My PCs has a tendency to go for ridiculous long times discussing how to do an encounter, they spent about 5 minutes discussing how to attack a giant fire beetle nest after aggro-ing them and this is short discussion by the measure. They often repeat these long discussions in the middle of these encounters, its mostly just 2 of the 4. The other 2 have actually gone off to get food while this is happening, which increases the delays.

While I'll give them all the time if they're planning how to tackle a castle, i feel like giving them the same thing at the start of every encounter with every goblin is too much so I want to impose a time limit to encounter that started.

What do you think is a rough good time limit to keep the game flowing?

Edit: I have brought it up several times. they (being old friends) go with "we're not talking that long" or "we'll remember next time".

if the party planes in combat then have a time for probably one minute. when it goes off the players get attacked by the enemies. only use this if they are really planing out.

[Tanarii]

Because, half of my table are completely new - not only to D&D, but to pencil and paper RPGs. They're barely wrapping their heads around the potential of the game, let alone making complex plans.Aye. Fast paced combat and only a few seconds to make a decision about what to do (but not execute it) is usually overwhelming to newer players. Like any game, they need time to get used to the rules.

But its still a good idea to encourage them to talk tactics for 10 minutes at the beginning of a game while setting up. Players almost always use that time to chat about stuff while waiting for the DM, so it's good use of the time.

[Beelzebubba]

But its still a good idea to encourage them to talk tactics for 10 minutes at the beginning of a game while setting up. Players almost always use that time to chat about stuff while waiting for the DM, so it's good use of the time.

Yeah, that is a good idea. I'll wait a few sessions to let them learn the ropes and then encourage that.