What do you mean, it slows the game down?

[Schwann145]

This is a pretty regular complaint whenever mechanics are discussed/introduced into the game, and I need help understanding exactly what people think the game is supposed to be.
Now, I understand D&D has a history of mechanical minutiae in previous editions that could absolutely become a chore to try and keep track of, but 5e is basically on the polar opposite of that problem, so it seems like the complaint about slowing the game down comes up all too often.

If mechanics are problematic because they "slow down the gameplay," what exactly is gameplay supposed to look like at "normal" speed?

I could be wrong, but I've gotten the impression over the years that people basically expect 5e to play itself, and anytime you're asked to do some mechanical homework, keep track of a thing or two, etc, the complaints about bogging/slowing down the game come out of the woodwork.
It comes off to me like 5e has coddled lazy players (and let's face it - most ttrpg players are lazy! Something something, can't even bother to read your class let alone the PHB... :smallbiggrin:) but I don't want to point fingers at a community based on a hunch.

No one wants to go back to 3e's dozen different bonuses/penalties that may or may not stack, or 4e's even worse problem with the same, but IMO keeping track of a bonus or two, or a round-to-round status effect is the expectation of gameplay, isn't it?

[chainer1216]

Maybe you should rephrase this so you aren't actively insulting the people you supposedly wish to understand.

[Goobahfish]

Hmmm... I have a rather different view.

There are many mechanics that do slow down play and others that don't.

Basically, 3e/4e/PF did some pretty dumb things that lead to:

A: I roll a 9
DM: Is that including your bonus?
A: Oops, I mean 15
B: Did you include Bless?
A: I mean 16
DM: It's raining so that is a 14 and its a miss.

C: I attack the...

A: Oh wait, I'm raging so it's a 16, is that a hit?

DM: Sigh.

So this is where the spirit of 'mechanics is bad' comes from.
---
PF2 still has... you are poisoned 2. What does poisoned 2 do? -2 to...

DM: Sigh

---

(I'm guessing you get this already) but it is explicitly slow.

There is also... any time a player needs to go to the DMG or PHB or whatever. That indicates that something is wrong (hence the aversion to codified exploration rules).

I think there are ways around this. Advantage/Disadvantage is a so-so idea to solve this problem as when it occurs the change is on the table in front of you. Adding D4 to a damage roll is another example of an 'ok mechanic' because it is obvious that it happened.

The problem is the amount of 'things to remember' or 'things to do'. If you can avoid that, extra mechanics are fine.

[Dungeon-noob]

First, i'd like to second chainer1216 here. Your phrasing is rather dismissive and insulting.

But to try to answer your question anyway, i don't think you've been reading a lot of the complaints very well. A mechanic taking time isn't a problem in and of itself, but when it takes an hour to go through a round of combat, it's slow and people don't get to do much. And that's not fun. I see complaints about slowing the game down pop up almost entirely around mechanics that are experienced as not adding much to the experience while eating up a lot of time. Little value to the significant time they take. Which ends up being unfun for everyone, even the ones using it.

Minionmancy gets this a lot, because rolling over a dozen d20s to hit, doing minor damage with each individual hit, and having to position each individual weenie while they die to a single hit or AoE is time consuming, and not all that interesting a lot of the time.

So that's what i think people mean when they bring up slowing down the game: an idea taking more time then what it adds to the experience is worth, and the game being less fun to play as a result.

[kazaryu]

This is a pretty regular complaint whenever mechanics are discussed/introduced into the game, and I need help understanding exactly what people think the game is supposed to be.
Now, I understand D&D has a history of mechanical minutiae in previous editions that could absolutely become a chore to try and keep track of, but 5e is basically on the polar opposite of that problem, so it seems like the complaint about slowing the game down comes up all too often.

If mechanics are problematic because they "slow down the gameplay," what exactly is gameplay supposed to look like at "normal" speed?

I could be wrong, but I've gotten the impression over the years that people basically expect 5e to play itself, and anytime you're asked to do some mechanical homework, keep track of a thing or two, etc, the complaints about bogging/slowing down the game come out of the woodwork.
It comes off to me like 5e has coddled lazy players (and let's face it - most ttrpg players are lazy! Something something, can't even bother to read your class let alone the PHB... :smallbiggrin:) but I don't want to point fingers at a community based on a hunch.

No one wants to go back to 3e's dozen different bonuses/penalties that may or may not stack, or 4e's even worse problem with the same, but IMO keeping track of a bonus or two, or a round-to-round status effect is the expectation of gameplay, isn't it?


First, i'd like to second chainer1216 here. Your phrasing is rather dismissive and insulting.

But to try to answer your question anyway, i don't think you've been reading a lot of the complaints very well. A mechanic taking time isn't a problem in and of itself, but when it takes an hour to go through a round of combat, it's slow and people don't get to do much. And that's not fun. I see complaints about slowing the game down pop up almost entirely around mechanics that are experienced as not adding much to the experience while eating up a lot of time. Little value to the significant time they take. Which ends up being unfun for everyone, even the ones using it.

Minionmancy gets this a lot, because rolling over a dozen d20s to hit, doing minor damage with each individual hit, and having to position each individual weenie while they die to a single hit or AoE is time consuming, and not all that interesting a lot of the time.

So that's what i think people mean when they bring up slowing down the game: an idea taking more time then what it adds to the experience is worth, and the game being less fun to play as a result.

to go a bit deeper into what dungeon-noob said, its also not jsut about the overall pace of play. having several minions on the map can bog down initiative and cause a significant amount of time between player turns. But it also arbitrarily extends one players turn to being longer/more eventful than the rest. which balances play in favor of that individual layer, which, when combined with the fact that the rest of the players are actively playing less anyway, can lead to hard feelings and boredom.

so like...lets assume that in a normal combat, every round, every character takes a total of 30 seconds to resolve. that includes their turn, reactions, rolling saves, marking down HP loss. all that combined, 30 seconds, per round, per character in initiative.

if you have a party of 5, and 5 enemies. each round is taking 5 minutes to resolve. only 30 seconds of which are individual players involved. so a player is really only actively involved for 10% of the combat. Now imagine the druid summons 8 giant eagles. not only does that add an extra 4 minutes to the round (almost double). meaning now 4/5 players are only actively involved for ~5% of the time, while caster that did the summon is involved in 1/2 of the game. great for that one player, not so much for everyone else. and this is being super generous. i'd argue that on average, a lot of groups the time per round a character takes is higher. meaning that even if the proportion of total time they're active doesn't change, the time between turns is much longer.

So for me, thats what i mean by 'slows down combat.' sure, you can whine about people being adults, and having an attention span...but really? we're here to play a game, obviously in a turn based game everyone needs to be patient enough to wait their turn, and also obviously it'd be difficult to run a game like DnD without the turn based system. but that doesn't mean we need to unnecessarily make those turns longer and really push the limits of peoples patience/attention span.

[stoutstien]

I personally break it up into 3 categories.

Tension- if action resolution or rulings takes too long the build up can be loss not only for that single encounter but for the whole arc. Probably the most overlooked factor in planning out adventures.

Pacing - games usually have a set range of RL time to work with so game time has a premium. If it's not worth the exchange you are losing value.

Stress/annoyance- time is a pooled resource with DnD. You are spending everyone's investment when you are halting the game to figure out how a spell works you aren't familiar with or looking up a rule for something inconsequential.

[Cheesegear]

If mechanics are problematic because they "slow down the gameplay," what exactly is gameplay supposed to look like at "normal" speed?

Mostly it comes from players who aren't paying attention and/or don't know the rules well enough to keep track of the rules when it isn't their turn.

Essentially
1. Maths is too hard, or
2. The player is playing a character that is too complicated for their concentration span.
3. They simply don't pay attention to what other players' do when it isn't their turn and thus don't know what is or isn't affecting them.

4. ...Phones.


It comes off to me like 5e has coddled lazy players

In my experience, a lot of players get stuck because they don't make their own characters.
- Either D&D Beyond just 'does everything for them', or
- Someone else at the table - usually the DM themselves - has made a character for them.


Something something, can't even bother to read your class let alone the PHB...

A big problem is that an individual player often thinks they need to read and/or memorise all of it. Which is simply incorrect. When I tell players they only actually have to read basically two Chapters at most - and no, it's not an exam, you don't even need to remember what you read. Suddenly they get a lot better at knowing what to do when it's their turn.

Also my attention is on my phone, not on my character sheet.


IMO keeping track of a bonus or two, or a round-to-round status effect is the expectation of gameplay, isn't it?

It depends when you started playing D&D, and what got you into the game.

If you got into the game because you want to play RPGs, but playing by yourself, alone, on your computer every night is lame, and you'd rather play an RPG with friends, socially, and make memes and shared experiences with other people...You understand how RPGs work, at their core. Because what you really want to do is play an RPG.

'I hate this roleplaying. I never know what to describe to get what I want. Can't I just roll dice? I'll just be on my phone whilst everyone else talks to the King.' ...Roleplaying is just...Being a person. It shouldn't be that hard.

If you got into the game because you saw a group of friends on YouTube/Twitch, who are more-or-less ignoring the rules because their income is partially tied to making a smooth experience that is fun to watch for the audience that keeps them engaged and running on a script - albeit a loose one - Then yes. Your expectation of gameplay is going to be different. Because what you want is a story, not a game.

'Wouldn't the game be more fun without dice? I'll just be on my phone during combat. Since everyone else can just do the maths for me.' ...Well then what's the game without dice?

RP vs. G.
The game gets in the way of the story.
The story gets in the way of the game.

A song as old as time.

[MrStabby]

I think there are other things as well as the aforementioned minions that can slow down the game.

Look at polymorph - "I turn into something - you guys talk amongst yourselves whilst I brows the MM for ideas"

Area of effect spells - "yeah, but if I move the spell 5ft to the right then I miss that skelleton but can catch that giant rat... is that worth the trade off"

Spells dependent on positoning - "well if I cast fear from over here, then I can get enemies to runiton that corner... who is next inintitiative and can they move into a position to get an attack of oppotunity if they run that way?"

Spells like shield - "Ok, thats a hit... would you like to use a reaction"

Or class abiliies like favoured foe that effecively insert extra need for concentration saves and bookkeeping for a very modest damage increase. Or wildshape that is like polymorph in that it provides an array of choices


None of these are by themselves bad, but the problem comes when the impact isn't worth the time or when it leads to one player getting much more time than others.

[Leon]

Biggest thing that I've found that slows any game down is inattentive players, sure there can be some tedious mechanics but if people aren't paying attention to what's going on it will bog down even the simplest game. Knowing what you can do with your character and possible actions you might take ahead of time can really speed things up and keeping aware of what's going on in the game so that you keep the flow going.

[Cheesegear]

Look at polymorph - "I turn into something - you guys talk amongst yourselves whilst I brows the MM for ideas"

You should already know what you want to turn into. Otherwise why do you have that spell? Else you're not experienced enough to have that spell. You are bogging down the game because the spells you're using are too complicated for you to use.

...Your character is too complicated for you. Play something else.

Or, and this is the way I would do it; 'Free spell swap; Get rid of Polymorph for anything else.'


Area of effect spells - "yeah, but if I move the spell 5ft to the right then I miss that skelleton but can catch that giant rat... is that worth the trade off"

That's something you should be deciding when it isn't your turn. You are making choices during other players' turns, aren't you? ...Or are you just on your phone 'til it's your turn again?


Spells dependent on positoning - "well if I cast fear from over here, then I can get enemies to runiton that corner... who is next inintitiative and can they move into a position to get an attack of oppotunity if they run that way?"

Ditto.


Spells like shield - "Ok, thats a hit... would you like to use a reaction"

That's not the DM's responsibility. Either a player knows what to do when they get hit...Or they take damage. The DM shouldn't be reminding players what abilities they have.

Player: 'Oh, remember two turns ago, I could've used Shield...'
DM: 'I assumed you didn't want to and you were saving your spell slots. Because you know how to play your character, yes? If you find that remembering when to use Shield is too difficult, you can switch it out when you level up, right?'

Players can remind other players of their abilities. That's fine. But it's not the DM's responsibility to, unless the players are literally brand new. But that's why new players should start from Level 1. So they actually learn what abilities their character has, as they acquire them.


Or class abiliies like favoured foe that effecively insert extra need for concentration saves and bookkeeping for a very modest damage increase.

Concentration saves are part of the game. That's not slowing down anything because it's neither a player or DM choice to make those rolls.


Or wildshape that is like polymorph in that it provides an array of choices

If you don't know what choice you want to make before you make it, you maybe shouldn't be making that choice.


the problem comes when the impact isn't worth the time or when it leads to one player getting much more time than others.

All the problems you listed are simply symptoms of:
- Players not understanding how their character works,
- Players not paying attention, or
- Players checking out when it isn't their turn.

Mechanics don't slow the game down. Players slow the game down. Because the game is mechanics. If you could solve the above three things, you'd be the greatest DM in the world, or you have the best players in the world.

[SociopathFriend]

As someone who plays a Necromancer pretty often... Minionmancy taking a long time is a symptom- not the cause.

I could command and roll IIRC 10 or so undead at my max and, along with casting my own spell, still beat out other members of a certain group of players. Because I knew what the various undead did in terms of to-hit and to-damage AND wrote it down in case I couldn't remember it. That included the difference between Animate Dead and Danse Macabre.

Additionally- I played them as a swarm. Not individual units. This is both personal preference AND how I maintain Animate Dead should work as-written.


On each of your turns, you can use a bonus Action to mentally Command any creature you made with this spell if the creature is within 60 feet of you (if you control multiple Creatures, you can Command any or all of them at the same time, issuing the same Command to each one). You decide what Action the creature will take and where it will move during its next turn, or you can issue a general Command, such as to guard a particular Chamber or corridor. If you issue no commands, the creature only defends itself against Hostile Creatures. Once given an order, the creature continues to follow it until its task is complete.

You cannot command, "Skeleton A attack Hobgoblin B, Skeleton C attack Goblin D, Zombie E stand behind Goblin D for flanking, Skeleton F run away, pick up that bow, and shoot the Ogre Mage".

You can command, "All Skeletons attack a different enemy creature" or "All undead in melee range, swarm enemies within 30 feet of me".





Now I say all of this because again, symptom vs cause. I am a (somewhat) organized player that will make the effort to streamline my turn out of concern for others (myself too, I'm honest).

An unorganized player, or one that isn't attentive, is unlikely to make that effort for anything- Minionmancy is just one of the scenarios where this is the most obvious.

I've seen a player as just a basic Rogue struggle to decide what to use his Action and Bonus Action on: no spells or minions. Just having to decide what to do between Attack, Disengage, or a Healing Potion. Struggle- for a while.

Which does imply the worry of adding more dice or more mechanics is valid; an inattentive player or one who isn't organized with what they can do OR struggles to remember what they can do WILL presumably suffer the more you pile on them. They might rise to the challenge or they might not.

The problem did exist for earlier editions as well but the more parts you have for any machine, even a purely mental one, the more chances you have for something to break, go wrong, or be misunderstood.

[JonBeowulf]

I'm gonna estimate that 95% of the times I've run into the "game slows down" issue it's because one or more players aren't paying attention to what happens when it's not their turn. Then when it is their turn, they ask questions for stuff they would have already known if they were listening or move somewhere that is now dumb because the map changed since the last time they looked at it or forgot they had a concentration spell going so the DM had to remind them when they want to launch another concentration spell or some other thing that wastes the group's time.

My personal favorite is when the player just says, "I attack the nearest enemy" when they've got a bunch of them in their face.

The number of things in the combat is irrelevant... if you can't be bothered to know what's going on, then go do something else.

It's not the mechanics; it's the people.

[Dungeon-noob]

I would like to push back on the idea that slowing down can only happen because the players aren't playing right. There's only so much you can do to figure out your turn beforehand, because the situation is constantly changing. If your ally kills the opponents standing next to you, you don't need to cunning action disengage anymore. If the group of enemies mostly make their saves against the AoE spell, they're still going to be there for you to deal with. Etc. I often think out my turn ahead of time, but i can't know what i'll do before it's my turn, as the situation i'm playing in doesn't stay the same.

Also, i seem to be reading between the lines here that every player needs to be able to keep up. To that i have to say is that new players are in fact allowed to play, and not everyone is a crunchmaster 1000. If your character is new, if you haven't encountered this rule (interaction) before, or if you're otherwise not as good at dealing with all the rules of 5e, you still get to play. Gatekeeping based on mechanical skill is not okay. And 5e can be deceptively difficult, especially if you haven't played it before. Just take a look at hiding discussions, spell interaction discussions and the like in this very forum to see how finicky getting the rules right can be, even if you're experienced.

Sure, there are some players who aren't engaged. There'll be some who could certainly do better. But by no means are they the only ones who need some time, or do they justify dunking on anyone who doesn't want to rush themselves when they're here to have fun.

[Kane0]

Adding extra steps to any given turn in actions to perform, options to consider, conditional functions to parse and/or calculations to perform, especially if those factors are nested and thus compounding.

[Cheesegear]

There's only so much you can do to figure out your turn beforehand, because the situation is constantly changing.

If you're paying attention the whole time, that shouldn't be a problem.

If you're like 'Next turn I'm gonna attack the Captain, got it, lock it in. Let's go.' then you sit on your phone for six minutes. ...Sure. You planned your turn well in advance. But then you stopped paying attention.

If you're keeping up with the gameplay, your turn can be adapted on every turn, not just your own. Alright the Captain died, I move to the next most valuable target. Oop. He's dead too. Alright there's just chaff left, alright I attack the one closest to me I guess...Oh now it's my turn, I attack the one closest to me.


Also, i seem to be reading between the lines here that every player needs to be able to keep up.

Right.


To that i have to say is that new players are in fact allowed to play, and not everyone is a crunchmaster 1000. If your character is new, if you haven't encountered this rule (interaction) before, or if you're otherwise not as good at dealing with all the rules of 5e, you still get to play.

Do you really think this is the argument that people are making? New players bad? New characters bad?

[Chaos Jackal]

I would like to push back on the idea that slowing down can only happen because the players aren't playing right. There's only so much you can do to figure out your turn beforehand, because the situation is constantly changing. If your ally kills the opponents standing next to you, you don't need to cunning action disengage anymore. If the group of enemies mostly make their saves against the AoE spell, they're still going to be there for you to deal with. Etc. I often think out my turn ahead of time, but i can't know what i'll do before it's my turn, as the situation i'm playing in doesn't stay the same.

Also, i seem to be reading between the lines here that every player needs to be able to keep up. To that i have to say is that new players are in fact allowed to play, and not everyone is a crunchmaster 1000. If your character is new, if you haven't encountered this rule (interaction) before, or if you're otherwise not as good at dealing with all the rules of 5e, you still get to play. Gatekeeping based on mechanical skill is not okay. And 5e can be deceptively difficult, especially if you haven't played it before. Just take a look at hiding discussions, spell interaction discussions and the like in this very forum to see how finicky getting the rules right can be, even if you're experienced.

Sure, there are some players who aren't engaged. There'll be some who could certainly do better. But by no means are they the only ones who need some time, or do they justify dunking on anyone who doesn't want to rush themselves when they're here to have fun.

Certainly. And anyone who expects a new player to be on the ball 100% within half an hour or something is obviously the one at fault. But you don't need them to be a crunchmaster 1000 from a point on, you only need them to pay some attention to the game they're playing and actually bother looking at their class features over a while. Which, at least in my experiences as a player, is often not the case. And not just for new players either. Supposedly experienced players are still quite likely to turn the simplest fight in an absolute slogfest. And that's for 5e, which is far from the most complicated game.

I'm not gonna make some grand sweeping statement about how everyone who delays the game is someone who, for whatever reason, doesn't know the game or isn't paying attention... but I can say that, as far as my tables are concerned, it's overwhelmingly the case.

The default slow player isn't the summoner or the caster or whatever. It's the person who asks the same question about how a feature works ten times in five sessions, the person who, after the DM finishes replying to another player, immediately asks the same question, the person who faces decision paralysis the moment the available options exceed 1. And they're not rare either.

Right now, I'm playing in three campaigns. Total number of players, including myself, is 11. Four of them literally take five minutes for every other turn and there's at least one in each campaign. There used to be two more players in one of these games who were just as bad. When it comes to combat, the overwhelming majority of player-spent time is wasted by a third of the players. And said players aren't necessarily casters or minionmancers either. One of them is a barbarian. Another used to be a monk. And the casters aren't typically slow because they're looking for the best spell, they're slow because they have no idea what they're doing. They ask whether they'll provoke an OA, then ask what the spell they just cast does and what's its range, then try to cast a bonus action spell only to be told, for the nth time, that they can't do that, then they'll again ask if moving over there to cast their initial spell provokes an OA. And I'm not even joking; that was this Wednesday.

My tables are certainly not the standard of D&D tables. But they are quite varied; that's the campaigns alone described above and I'm at times playing in various oneshots with different people. Supposedly experienced people. Who will still take two minutes to decide whether to move left and hit or move right and hit. While possibly repeatedly messing up some rule that they should've known since the first day they played.

I don't know if my tables are such a big deviation from the norm, but going from online takes, lack of general knowledge about the game and the overall attitude of people towards rulebooks (people very rarely read the manual and that's true not just in D&D or games specifically but just about everything in life), I doubt there are so many where everything is smooth and it's the mechanics that slow things down.

Sure, rolling for eight summons, your familiar and your simulacrum will take longer than rolling for yourself alone. Claiming that there's no way more complex characters are, on average, slower to execute their turns than simpler ones, is denying an obvious reality. But that's a vacuum. The player behind the character is extremely important in terms of action resolution speed. As long as you know what you're doing and are quick on the uptake, it can definitely be kept within reasonable bounds. While there's probably way too many people out there who just need a sword and two targets in order to take as long with their turn as the rest of the table combined.

[RazorChain]

First make the players responsible for helping runnig the game. Make them keep track of their initiative, know their spells and abilites and point out when they should get advantage from flanking, attacking from hiding etc.

All the people playing the game are responsible for making the game flow smoothly and I choose to delegate and make the players responsible for knowing their rules.

If someone has forgotten that he should roll an extra die or with advantage or whatever and his/her turn is over then tough luck.

[Selion]

This is a pretty regular complaint whenever mechanics are discussed/introduced into the game, and I need help understanding exactly what people think the game is supposed to be.
Now, I understand D&D has a history of mechanical minutiae in previous editions that could absolutely become a chore to try and keep track of, but 5e is basically on the polar opposite of that problem, so it seems like the complaint about slowing the game down comes up all too often.

If mechanics are problematic because they "slow down the gameplay," what exactly is gameplay supposed to look like at "normal" speed?

I could be wrong, but I've gotten the impression over the years that people basically expect 5e to play itself, and anytime you're asked to do some mechanical homework, keep track of a thing or two, etc, the complaints about bogging/slowing down the game come out of the woodwork.
It comes off to me like 5e has coddled lazy players (and let's face it - most ttrpg players are lazy! Something something, can't even bother to read your class let alone the PHB... :smallbiggrin:) but I don't want to point fingers at a community based on a hunch.

No one wants to go back to 3e's dozen different bonuses/penalties that may or may not stack, or 4e's even worse problem with the same, but IMO keeping track of a bonus or two, or a round-to-round status effect is the expectation of gameplay, isn't it?

It's called accessibility. It exists in videogames, it exists in everything, from vehicles design to videogames, it now exists even in RPG.
You could argue on what is the right degree of accessibility, i think that 5e made a wonderful job, there is a high variety in builds/effects with simple rules. Most of the times if you don't remember exactly a rule, advantage/disadvantage or resistance/vulnerability is the right answer anywhere, giving the DM the ability of ruling things on the spot (EG, my DM recently house ruled vulnerability to lighting to creatures in water). This, on the other sides, creates redundancies, and i agree that they forced too much their hands in this direction (multiclassing and feats as optional rules? come on!), but all in all i think it's the better system i know ATM.
PF2 lost the match in that IMHO (i'm not biased, i was, in fact, a strong supporter of PF1 over 3.5 before)

[Damon_Tor]

The biggest problem with things that slow down gameplay isn't how long it takes a given player to get through their turn, it's how long it takes for it to actually become your turn in the first place.

I don't blame the other players if they tune out while the druid micro-manages his 16 velociraptors or whatever. He sits there counting out the feet of movement "hrm, they'll jump over this difficult terrain here, half speed to climb this embankment here... no wait, it's slightly faster if they go around like this... okay, this one here readies an attack, then this other one climbs up to the tree branch so it can get into melee above the target, then they both attack at the same time... then this other raptor comes around here and..." zzzzzzz. Of course the other players pull out their phones, what, are they supposed to sit there enraptured while the one player takes ten minutes to take his freaking turn? And then there's 2-4 other players who still need to go before it comes around to you again.

There are certain things that are simply not too much to ask. If you are rolling sneak attack dice, the bare minimum is to actually have the correct number of d6s to roll it all in one go. If you roll it one dice at a time, writing down each roll on a piece of paper, then adding them up in a column like you're in third grade maths, I am going to tune out. Same is true for advantage: have two dice, roll at the same time. Dice are cheap. On the inverse: if you have a giant bag full of millions of dice, actually have the dice you need at hand. If you know your weapon is a d12, HAVE A FREAKING D12 IN FRONT OF YOU. Do not dig through a giant bag of dice looking for a d12 only at the moment you need to roll damage.

If you are shapeshifting into a creature, have the creature's stat block available. If I roll to attack you as the DM, and ask you what your AC is in pachycephalasuarus form, don't sigh at me and languidly reach for your phone to look it up. If I ask you how many hitpoints you have left after taking six hits, and you have no idea because you didn't bother noting your new max HP when you shapeshifted, and then you say "uh, I actually dropped to 0 a while ago" I might lose my mind a little.

If you cast a spell, have the text of the spell ready. Read the freaking text of the spell out loud when I ask you what it does. Do I even own the book? Is this spell from Bullywug's Guide to Burps and Bubbles? I don't freaking know, read me the spell. If we all go through the whole song and dance of rolling seven saving throws only for you to sheepishly say "oh never mind, it actually can't target constructs at all. I'll cast shatter instead" then we're all going to have a bad time.

I'm starting to rant, so I'll stop now. Just to summarize: yes, the pacing of the game can be too slow. No, it doesn't mean I'm "lazy" if I don't like it.

[Segev]

If you have a lot of minions, it can help to ask the other players if they would like to run some of them. Heck, assign squads to their PCs, if you can.

[JNAProductions]

Something I remember I called for "Slowing the game down" was a proposal to make odd attributes matter more.

The proposal wasn't complicated-it was "Add +1 if you roll evens on an extra die, don't if you roll odd, for any d20 roll governed by that attribute." It's not super time-consuming in one go, being only a singular extra die.
But it'd apply to every single roll you make with that attribute, while it would only have an effect one in forty times*. It's a small slowdown, but an even smaller gain.

Whereas something like Polymorph or Conjure spells have the potential to be a much, much bigger slowdown. (Though they're not too bad if the player knows what they're doing, at least.) They also have a much bigger impact-adding +1 to half your attack rolls if you have a Belt of Giant Strength will virtually NEVER be the difference between success and failure. Turning the 4 HP Fighter into a Giant Ape can very easily be the difference.

The math here isn't complicated. If you have a +8 attack bonus (21 Strength from a Belt, +3 proficiency) and need to hit AC 20, on a 12 or higher (9/20 times) you hit.
On a 10 or less (10/20 times), you miss.
On an 11 exactly (1/20 times), you might hit if you add the bonus, which happens half the time.

So, in a longish adventuring day of seven combats, three rounds each, and you make two attacks every round (yes, Action Surge might add more if you're a Fighter-but not being able to reach enemies could lose you some, so let's just say two per combat round) that's 42 attacks total. In a long day, you're likely to see a single miss turn into a hit.

[False God]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's a lack of clarity from the rules.

It's easy to pay attention with clear rules. You can ever disengage from the game for a bit and come right back when you have clear rules.

But 5E is very wishy-washy. "Rulings not rules.*TM" Things could be this or they could be that, you don't know. You could have a strong grasp of whatever 5E thinks it's calling the rules, and still have to sit and wait patiently for a ruling to be made. And until you know the ruling, you can't make a decision. And for every action, there's a ruling.

It's not a game of player declaration. 4E was that game. "Player Empowerment.*TM" was their motto, players could just declare stuff and then they could do it, because the game was clear on what they could do, and what they couldn't do. The DM was limited to either confirming "Yes." or denying "No."

But the peanut gallery wasn't happy with players being in charge, so now we're back to everyone waiting on orders to come down from on high. It's not "I move..." it's "Can I move..." It's not "I attack..." It's "Can I attack..." The players functionally don't know. Decisions can't be made, the whole thing backs up until one person gives authorization. System mastery doesn't matter, because the DM could at any moment, negate your knowledge with their own whimsy.

5E is a system designed by people who are tired of constantly having to break up the children, so it's inherent setup is "Do it however you want." Everything is optional! Rulings not rules! DM empowerment! Every game is an island in a vast sea of everyone doing whatever they want, whenever they want.

TLDR:
We all know the rules, but we lack the ability to act on them because the rules inherently deny us the ability to do so until we have top-down approval.

[Segev]

Something I remember I called for "Slowing the game down" was a proposal to make odd attributes matter more.

The proposal wasn't complicated-it was "Add +1 if you roll evens on an extra die, don't if you roll odd, for any d20 roll governed by that attribute." It's not super time-consuming in one go, being only a singular extra die.
But it'd apply to every single roll you make with that attribute, while it would only have an effect one in forty times*. It's a small slowdown, but an even smaller gain.

Whereas something like Polymorph or Conjure spells have the potential to be a much, much bigger slowdown. (Though they're not too bad if the player knows what they're doing, at least.) They also have a much bigger impact-adding +1 to half your attack rolls if you have a Belt of Giant Strength will virtually NEVER be the difference between success and failure. Turning the 4 HP Fighter into a Giant Ape can very easily be the difference.

The math here isn't complicated. If you have a +8 attack bonus (21 Strength from a Belt, +3 proficiency) and need to hit AC 20, on a 12 or higher (9/20 times) you hit.
On a 10 or less (10/20 times), you miss.
On an 11 exactly (1/20 times), you might hit if you add the bonus, which happens half the time.

So, in a longish adventuring day of seven combats, three rounds each, and you make two attacks every round (yes, Action Surge might add more if you're a Fighter-but not being able to reach enemies could lose you some, so let's just say two per combat round) that's 42 attacks total. In a long day, you're likely to see a single miss turn into a hit.

Not recommending the mechanic, but a faster resolution of this would be to double all bonuses, make the basis value 20 rather than 10 for AC and 16 rather than 8 for save DCs, and then double all stat bonuses, making odd stats have one more than they otherwise would after this doubling. i.e., 16 gets a +6 instead of a +3, and 17 gets a +7 instead of a +3.

This requires a little more work up front to convert all the numbers during prep, but in gameplay would have the same mathematical effect as the house rule without any extra rolling.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I find there are several sources of slow play. But the problem is that they stack non-linearly. And some of them are inevitable--there will always be slow and inattentive players. But give a slow player a complex character or complex resolution steps and the issue gets exponentially (ok, maybe just power law with a high exponent) worse.

Type 1 are caused by the slow, indecisive players. I've got one in one of my groups. Currently they're playing a very simple character (roughly 4 buttons), and they still take a while to do their turns. Why? Forgetting modifiers, having to do the mental math out loud, forgetting which dice are being rolled (for damage), etc. But I'll come back to this one later.

Type 2 are caused by the inattentive players. Those who are checked out or on their devices. These are often caused (or exacerbated) by all the other sources of slowdown. But I will say that big single turns (when a character wipes a bunch of enemies off the board or radically changes things) are bad for these players and tend to create more of them--it doesn't matter if you plan your turn in advance if someone else destroys all those plans and now you have to rethink everything. Might as well just wait until the dust settles and it's your turn to do your planning since they'll get disrupted anyway. Or so the thinking goes.

Type 3 are caused by complex characters combined with "tactical thinking". When encounters are tuned so that every action must be just right and you have a lot of variables in play, things necessarily slow down. That Type 1 player? He used to (in the previous campaign) play a more complex character. Barely more complex. And my games aren't that tactical. But it was really really slow there, even though in the end he usually ended up doing the same thing he did the previous turns. Analysis paralysis is a real problem. Maybe not for the uber nerds (said as one of them) who inhabit this forum, but it's a real thing.

Type 4 are caused by slow or multi-step resolution of hot path actions. The Hot Path is the path that gets hit a lot during play. So think "resolving an attack roll". Each tiny amount of slowness (and yes, more complicated dice pools and counting successes, etc are small but definitely slower) you add really makes a big difference here, because it's part of a loop that's being run a lot. For everyone. Non-hot-path action resolution can survive a bit more slowness, but not tons more.

If, for instance, you make attack resolution always a contested roll (attack vs active defense), you slow things down tremendously. If you require a table lookup, you've bogged it down by an order of magnitude (ok, at least a factor of 2). And conditional table lookups (conditional anything, to be honest) are super slow. Especially nested conditional table lookups (ie roll on table 1 to figure out which table you roll on to get the result, but only if...). Stacking conditional or temporary bonuses and maluses are really really bad here as well. I'm well in favor of small, single-step resolution of hot-path actions.

An example of a non-hot-path action that's obnoxious to resolve is prismatic spray. Huge aoe, hits lots of targets. For each target, you need to
a) roll a saving throw. This is already slow because you can't bulk roll (like you often can attacks) since everyone has their own save modifiers you have to look up and compare, as well as some having Magic Resistance, etc.
b) Do a dice-based table lookup. If this was just damage type, you could streamline it because many monsters just don't care what type the damage is. But it's not. The next step requires knowing both the save outcome AND the table outcome for each monster.
c) often roll a damage roll. At least this is the same for all table results. But some table results don't need one.
Fun spell, but obnoxious to resolve.

Type 5 are caused by adding more things to the board. This both adds actions (increasing the number of times the hot path is called), increases Type 3 issues (more tactical micromanagement), makes Type 2 worse (because now one person's turn is taking even longer), and heaven help you if the player doing the minionmancy is either highly tactically-minded OR slow/indecisive.

Type 5 is why I strongly support small, simple monsters. Because single monster fights are hard to do well at all for other reasons, and more than one complex monster means my turns (already one of the longer ones) take even longer and take time away from the table.

--------------

Adding more mechanics, especially to the hot path, makes things slower. And makes the other types of slowness worse, generally. So you can't just say "play with fast people." Because the slow we will always have with us. Plus, there are lots of people, in my experience, who aren't here for the tactical wargame aspect. Who dislike complex mechanics on their own terms, not just because it's slow (although that makes it worse). Complex is not good. Complex is bad IMO. Necessary bad sometimes, but bad. As simple as possible but no simpler is the idea. Complexity for complexity's sake is a major turn off for a lot of people.


-----------

Edit: And don't even get me started about having to roll back turns because someone screwed up in a material way. That's the worst slowdown possible. And more complex mechanics make that both more likely and more likely to be material.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

One mechanic that really doesn't slow down things much at all that has basically been handwaved due to an over-generous default calculation in 5e is encumbrance. You basically calculate it at character generation and adjust whenever you add or remove gear: very infrequently. Meanwhile Strength is considered one of the weakest stats and easy to dump.
So I'm not sure if some of 5e's simplification is due to an attempt to speed things along or just to remove math.

In terms of what actually slows down the game (and I've said this on several threads of this type before when other posters mention players who are slow) I want to scream: Look at the Character Sheets! They're awful. The front page should be at least 1/3 a table where you can list all common actions (including common spells) you might take, damage types, range, damage, save types, riders, etc. Another substantial section should be BAs (with triggers) and Reactions (with triggers). Do away with all the nonsense on the front page of the character sheets and players would actually have a chance.

[kazaryu]

But the peanut gallery wasn't happy with players being in charge, so now we're back to everyone waiting on orders to come down from on high. It's not "I move..." it's "Can I move..." It's not "I attack..." It's "Can I attack..." The players functionally don't know. Decisions can't be made, the whole thing backs up until one person gives authorization. System mastery doesn't matter, because the DM could at any moment, negate your knowledge with their own whimsy. this is quite an exageration. there are many, many clear rules. including, specifically, the ones you mentioned. you can say 'i attack' or 'i move' because there are very clear rules allowing you to do that. sure, a DM can try to stop you...but they always can. DM is, and has always been, the ultimate authority on whats allowed. 3.5/4e included. However, doing so without good reason is what most people acknowledge as 'bad dm-ing'. and it is widely acknowledged that if your DM abuses their authority in that way, you should replace them.



5E is a system designed by people who are tired of constantly having to break up the children, so it's inherent setup is "Do it however you want." Everything is optional! Rulings not rules! DM empowerment! Every game is an island in a vast sea of everyone doing whatever they want, whenever they want.
this is...again something that has always been true. DM's are free to homebrew and houserule as much as they want, so long as they can get players to play with their rules. The difference 5e makes is that it didn't write down a rule for every single bit of minutiae. So that situations that come up infrequently don't stall the game while people open the books to see what the rules are. just make a ruling, keep playing, and if you care look it up later. not saying its perfect, or that you should be content with it. there's nothing wrong with preferring a more robust ruleset. but that doesn't mean you need to exxagerate the things you don't like about a system and call them flaws.

[DomesticHausCat]

When you have players that are on it with the rules, 3.5 was great. But you need to have everyone essentially have a mini spreadsheet for every kind of spell and attack they have for adding up their bonuses. Like when I played martials in 3.5 I had a list like this:

Attack and damage bonuses added for:
Normal attacks
Normal attacks when raging
Power attacks
Power attacks when raging
Power attacks when raging when large sized
Etc

And I knew players that wrote down all of their spells as well on spreadsheets for easy reference.

Again, most players aren't willing to put the time into doing this for just a game they play every so often. It's only people that are really into it that will go for this.

I used to dislike advantage and disadvantage in 5e because it made every plus and minus the same. And nothing stacked. A flanked guy on the ground being attacked has the same boosts for the enemies hitting him as a guy who is just flanked. But in 3.5 you got incremental buffs and debuffs with every situational change. But the thing is this does make it hard for the average players.

Unfortunately the correct way to go is to simply help your players the best that you can. And find good players initially if that's what you need as a dm.

[False God]

this is quite an exageration. there are many, many clear rules. including, specifically, the ones you mentioned. you can say 'i attack' or 'i move' because there are very clear rules allowing you to do that. sure, a DM can try to stop you...but they always can. DM is, and has always been, the ultimate authority on whats allowed. 3.5/4e included. However, doing so without good reason is what most people acknowledge as 'bad dm-ing'. and it is widely acknowledged that if your DM abuses their authority in that way, you should replace them.
Ah yes the good old, it's not the game that's flawed, it's the DM. It's always easier to cast shade on the player (both the DM and the players) than it is to analyze problematic rulesets.


this is...again something that has always been true. DM's are free to homebrew and houserule as much as they want, so long as they can get players to play with their rules. The difference 5e makes is that it didn't write down a rule for every single bit of minutiae. So that situations that come up infrequently don't stall the game while people open the books to see what the rules are. just make a ruling, keep playing, and if you care look it up later. not saying its perfect, or that you should be content with it. there's nothing wrong with preferring a more robust ruleset. but that doesn't mean you need to exxagerate the things you don't like about a system and call them flaws.
Having the ability to change the game is not the same as being given the authority to change the game. It is not uncommon to experience significant blowback from players in previous editions when you change the rules (even to make them better!). People know the rules and they want to play the game the rules are presenting.

This is dramatically lacking in 5E with a much stronger attitude of "If you don't like how a table is being run, find another table." Unlike previous editions where of course, anyone could alter the game but were not explicitly told to do so as par for the course, 5E explicitly says change it up as you like.

You almost can't blame bad DMing, the designers literally said "Run the game however you want." (they did NOT say this in previous editions). There are certainly egregious examples of bad DMing as there always are, much as there are egregious examples of bad players as there always are. And if "bad Dming" is so commonplace, you have to beg the question: why? The only singular commonality between all of them is that they are playing the same system, which would imply that there is an inherent issue with the system that is generating "bad Dming".

TLDR: There's a difference between a game saying the DM is the ultimate arbiter of the rules of the game, and saying the DM is the ultimate arbiter of if the rules of the game even exist.

[Selion]

The biggest problem with things that slow down gameplay isn't how long it takes a given player to get through their turn, it's how long it takes for it to actually become your turn in the first place.

I don't blame the other players if they tune out while the druid micro-manages his 16 velociraptors or whatever. He sits there counting out the feet of movement "hrm, they'll jump over this difficult terrain here, half speed to climb this embankment here... no wait, it's slightly faster if they go around like this... okay, this one here readies an attack, then this other one climbs up to the tree branch so it can get into melee above the target, then they both attack at the same time... then this other raptor comes around here and..." zzzzzzz. Of course the other players pull out their phones, what, are they supposed to sit there enraptured while the one player takes ten minutes to take his freaking turn? And then there's 2-4 other players who still need to go before it comes around to you again.

There are certain things that are simply not too much to ask. If you are rolling sneak attack dice, the bare minimum is to actually have the correct number of d6s to roll it all in one go. If you roll it one dice at a time, writing down each roll on a piece of paper, then adding them up in a column like you're in third grade maths, I am going to tune out. Same is true for advantage: have two dice, roll at the same time. Dice are cheap. On the inverse: if you have a giant bag full of millions of dice, actually have the dice you need at hand. If you know your weapon is a d12, HAVE A FREAKING D12 IN FRONT OF YOU. Do not dig through a giant bag of dice looking for a d12 only at the moment you need to roll damage.

If you are shapeshifting into a creature, have the creature's stat block available. If I roll to attack you as the DM, and ask you what your AC is in pachycephalasuarus form, don't sigh at me and languidly reach for your phone to look it up. If I ask you how many hitpoints you have left after taking six hits, and you have no idea because you didn't bother noting your new max HP when you shapeshifted, and then you say "uh, I actually dropped to 0 a while ago" I might lose my mind a little.

If you cast a spell, have the text of the spell ready. Read the freaking text of the spell out loud when I ask you what it does. Do I even own the book? Is this spell from Bullywug's Guide to Burps and Bubbles? I don't freaking know, read me the spell. If we all go through the whole song and dance of rolling seven saving throws only for you to sheepishly say "oh never mind, it actually can't target constructs at all. I'll cast shatter instead" then we're all going to have a bad time.

I'm starting to rant, so I'll stop now. Just to summarize: yes, the pacing of the game can be too slow. No, it doesn't mean I'm "lazy" if I don't like it.

Following you...
Yeah, and in a game like 3.5/pathfinder if you are level 10+ this WILL happen even if you have everything ready. Because if you are a spellcaster you have literally one hundred of pages to manage, you cannot pretend i have everything ready when suddenly a wild mindflayer appears and does some buggety boggety on the fighter and i must remember right on the spot if i should use dispel magic/greater dispel magic/remove curse/break enchantment/limited wish or freaking mage's disjunction, or if i have a summon which may produce that specific spell (!), then if i fail i should search in 10 pages documentation what is the exact effect of buggety boggety and what is the difference between staggered and stunned and dazzled (if we are lucky and it's something in general rules, and not something in some obscure manual).
5e? either dispel magic (eventually upcasted) or remove curse. Status effects are half those of pathfinder and usually are advantage/disadvantage anyway

[Amechra]

Not recommending the mechanic, but a faster resolution of this would be to double all bonuses, make the basis value 20 rather than 10 for AC and 16 rather than 8 for save DCs, and then double all stat bonuses, making odd stats have one more than they otherwise would after this doubling. i.e., 16 gets a +6 instead of a +3, and 17 gets a +7 instead of a +3.

This requires a little more work up front to convert all the numbers during prep, but in gameplay would have the same mathematical effect as the house rule without any extra rolling.

It's only mathematically equivalent if you're also doubling the value you roll on your d20 ― otherwise, you go from a 1st level Fighter with Str 16 hitting AC 16 50% of the time to a 1st level Fighter with Str 16 hitting AC 32 0% of the time.

[Segev]

It's only mathematically equivalent if you're also doubling the value you roll on your d20 ― otherwise, you go from a 1st level Fighter with Str 16 hitting AC 16 50% of the time to a 1st level Fighter with Str 16 hitting AC 32 0% of the time.

Ah, good point. I was doing that quick-and-dirty. My point, I think, stands, though: doubling a bunch of stuff will make this "work" without having to have that extra die roll.

On the other side of it, rolling that "coin flip" die beside the d20 would also streamline it a bit. Yes, you still have to check it to see, but you're not adding another independent physical rolling action, that way.

Again, I'm not saying the mechanic is good or desirable. Just thinking about ways to make implementing it minimally invasive.

[huttj509]

Ah yes the good old, it's not the game that's flawed, it's the DM. It's always easier to cast shade on the player (both the DM and the players) than it is to analyze problematic rulesets.


Which rules regarding attacks and moving do you run into players needing to ask about? Because I've made a LOT of attacks and only needed to ask for weird situations (can I get enough of an angle on that arrowslit to attack through it?).

[Schwann145]

My issue when writing the OP comes from the place of the game/rule/ruling always catching flak for slowing the game down, when that's almost never the case.
As demonstrated plenty of times above, the issue is almost always either 1) inattentive/unprepared players or 2) bad rulings.

What I see happen in discussion is:
•New option is added to the game.
•New option requires minimal additional effort (a status effect that needs to be kept track of, a condition that applies each round that needs to be tracked, etc)
•Opinion of new option is regarded as bad for slowing down the game instead of just being a simple "extra damage" source or something similar.

The problem isn't the new option slows down the game. The problem is the already inattentive player now just has one more thing they'll be inattentive about.
But it's always the ruling that gets called out as the problem. That's the part I can't wrap my head around. That's why I ask what a "non-slow" version of gameplay should look like, because if the idea is the game needs to cater to inattentive players, then there really shouldn't be mechanics. D&D should become a community theater exercise or just another name for writing fanfic, right?

Now, I called bad rulings out as a problem above because there are legit some official things that are problematic and slow down the game, IMO.
For example:
•Necromancer doesn't want a horde of humanoid skeletons and zombies. Instead they want a power-equivalent amount of animated fire giants. Whoops, too bad! 5e refuses to support any dead animation that isn't humanoid.
•Summoner wants to do the right thing and come prepared. They have the stats of what they want to summon ready to go. Whoops, too bad! 5e officially rules that summons are chosen, on the spot, by the DM, who couldn't possibly be prepared for you wanting to cast a summons, and now you can't possible be properly prepared with stats for summons given to you on a whim.

[Segev]

Now, I called bad rulings out as a problem above because there are legit some official things that are problematic and slow down the game, IMO.
For example:
•Necromancer doesn't want a horde of humanoid skeletons and zombies. Instead they want a power-equivalent amount of animated fire giants. Whoops, too bad! 5e refuses to support any dead animation that isn't humanoid.
•Summoner wants to do the right thing and come prepared. They have the stats of what they want to summon ready to go. Whoops, too bad! 5e officially rules that summons are chosen, on the spot, by the DM, who couldn't possibly be prepared for you wanting to cast a summons, and now you can't possible be properly prepared with stats for summons given to you on a whim.

While the first bullet point is sadly true, and you need to talk to, wheedle, and beg your DM if you want to animate anything else, the second is not actually what the RAW say. I know Crawford has claimed that's what they say, but the bending over backwards to assert it is the case there but not in other spells with similar wording (where it really makes things even sillier) is somewhat absurd. If the spells are broken if the player gets to choose, then that's a problem, yes, but you don't fix a problem by pretending the RAW say something other than what they do.

(I wish I could remember which spell it was that I use as my example of "the same wording" resulting in absurd results if you apply the same logic that says summon spells are DM-chosen to it. I've made the case on this forum before.)

[Telok]

Adding extra steps to any given turn in actions to perform, options to consider, conditional functions to parse and/or calculations to perform, especially if those factors are nested and thus compounding.

From my data (started keeping track a bit ago but not at the spreadsheet right now) played 41 hours of combat of roughly 60-65 hours played, completing 242 minutes of turns*. Alas the only thing for me to pay attention to off turn is casters for counterspell. Occasionally there's a save or attack but those are just taking damage or a status effect, nothing for me as a player to engage with.

Causes of slowness: barbarian adding handfuls of damage dice and mods that change round by round, battle master fighter waiting for results from saves & effects from his hits because it changes his next move/attack, sorcerer rerolling dice and redoing handfuls of damage math, beholders with random selection of eye rays, cleric (1 of 2) looking up multi-effect spells because he didn't write everything down, dm damage math because everything at 13th level has at least equiv of 6d6 damage and or a save rider or two, dm stopping to cuss out monster design with caster npcs who don't have any useful spells and just be archers, anything where lots of saves are rolled and you have to wait for everything to be added & subtracted & halved & killed & etc., etc., etc.

Hmm. Looks like a bunch of constantly changing damage math, rerolls, and having to resolve a bunch of stuff before you can make the next decision. Interestingly it looks like the battle master fighter might be the slowest in terms of the number of decisions. Up to 6 attacks with the damage rolls, decisions to add dice, force saves and await results, wait on dm for if targets went down or used reactions. Practically as bad as a summoner in some ways.

*turns counted as minimum of 1 minute unless they're no-action turns with only a save rolled.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm gonna estimate that 95% of the times I've run into the "game slows down" issue it's because one or more players aren't paying attention to what happens when it's not their turn. yes. And then there are people who can't make a freaking decision.
My personal favorite is when the player just says, "I attack the nearest enemy" when they've got a bunch of them in their face. {snip} It's not the mechanics; it's the people.[/QUOTE] In 5e, yes.

Adding extra steps to any given turn in actions to perform, options to consider, conditional functions to parse and/or calculations to perform, especially if those factors are nested and thus compounding. Elegant and true.

An example of a non-hot-path action that's obnoxious to resolve is prismatic spray. Huge aoe, hits lots of targets. For each target, you need to
a) roll a saving throw. This is already slow because you can't bulk roll (like you often can attacks) since everyone has their own save modifiers you have to look up and compare, as well as some having Magic Resistance, etc.
b) Do a dice-based table lookup. If this was just damage type, you could streamline it because many monsters just don't care what type the damage is. But it's not. The next step requires knowing both the save outcome AND the table outcome for each monster.
c) often roll a damage roll. At least this is the same for all table results. But some table results don't need one.
Fun spell, but obnoxious to resolve. Yes, and our experience showed that with two or three other PCs helping with the rolls to speed things up it was still a grind to resolve. (Good thing it is basically a 7th level, and thus once per day, spell).
--------------


Plus, there are lots of people, in my experience, who aren't here for the tactical wargame aspect. Who dislike complex mechanics on their own terms, not just because it's slow (although that makes it worse). Complex is not good. Complex is bad IMO. Necessary bad sometimes, but bad. As simple as possible but no simpler is the idea. Complexity for complexity's sake is a major turn off for a lot of people. Yes. I will say that I value players who do a bit of homework and know their character very well; as a DM that is massively appreciated.

Look at the Character Sheets! They're awful. The front page should be at least 1/3 a table where you can list all common actions (including common spells) you might take, damage types, range, damage, save types, riders, etc. Another substantial section should be BAs (with triggers) and Reactions (with triggers). Do away with all the nonsense on the front page of the character sheets and players would actually have a chance. That's a fair point. Before I start a session, I have a little note pad where I sketch out all of the spells and abilities and have little boxes to check off so that I can keep track of them.
But the simple stuff that I just know? I don't need to write that down, but I know people who could use the aid.

[MrStabby]

You should already know what you want to turn into. Otherwise why do you have that spell? Else you're not experienced enough to have that spell. You are bogging down the game because the spells you're using are too complicated for you to use.

...Your character is too complicated for you. Play something else.

Or, and this is the way I would do it; 'Free spell swap; Get rid of Polymorph for anything else.'



That's something you should be deciding when it isn't your turn. You are making choices during other players' turns, aren't you? ...Or are you just on your phone 'til it's your turn again?



Ditto.



That's not the DM's responsibility. Either a player knows what to do when they get hit...Or they take damage. The DM shouldn't be reminding players what abilities they have.

Player: 'Oh, remember two turns ago, I could've used Shield...'
DM: 'I assumed you didn't want to and you were saving your spell slots. Because you know how to play your character, yes? If you find that remembering when to use Shield is too difficult, you can switch it out when you level up, right?'

Players can remind other players of their abilities. That's fine. But it's not the DM's responsibility to, unless the players are literally brand new. But that's why new players should start from Level 1. So they actually learn what abilities their character has, as they acquire them.



Concentration saves are part of the game. That's not slowing down anything because it's neither a player or DM choice to make those rolls.



If you don't know what choice you want to make before you make it, you maybe shouldn't be making that choice.



All the problems you listed are simply symptoms of:
- Players not understanding how their character works,
- Players not paying attention, or
- Players checking out when it isn't their turn.

Mechanics don't slow the game down. Players slow the game down. Because the game is mechanics. If you could solve the above three things, you'd be the greatest DM in the world, or you have the best players in the world.

Wow... you really don't like players do you.

So firstly not everyone starts the game having played it a lot of times before. For some people ther first gave of 5e D&D comes before they have total system mastery.

Secondly not every group is made up of the type of person that thinks its OK to dictate to other players what class they should or should not play.

Thirdly you can pay all the attention you like, but sometimes an exciting game changes rapidly, if that happens before your turn then its kind of a big deal - imagine kicking off your turn with a succesful perception check to know a load or reinforcements are on their way and its worth busting out a level 4 spell. Sure, you can prepare - but you have all the time between your perception check and your turn to do so.

Fourthly, it isnt just the caster of a spell that needs to know what it does - if a PC turns into a dinosaur, that kind of changes the situation a bit and every other player needs to know what that means. Is it going to win the encounter? Is it going to determine how many resources they still need to use? Will their planned area of effect relying on the druid's great wisdom save sill be a good idea?

Blaming the players isn't really helpful - because it isn't specifically the players being slow. It is the players executing the mechanics. And nor is framing this in terms of players forgetting abilities helpful either. In my experience players generally are pretty good with any ability that appears on their character sheet. If its on a list in front of them they don't forget it. The challenge is in that player understanding how to use it and coming to a conclusion quickly. After a few years of play I am pretty happy with the idea of using hit dice for recovery of HP and preserving reactions/spells so not always using shield. For newer players, I have seen them agonise over the number of people yet to hit them, the liklihood of being hit, the value of the spell they are concentraing on and so on - often in conjunction with other players, especally if its something like a buff spell.

[Jerrykhor]

And whats wrong with being lazy? I am playing a game, and i want to relax and have fun. Sure i have to work for my fun, but not too much that it feels like a chore.

{Scrubbed} I like being lazy. There's nothing wrong with being lazy. Lazy people think of faster solutions to problems. We already have so many rules to remember, so many things to keep track of, its impossible to not make any mistakes unless your mind is a computer.

[Alcore]

I have filed your name off of the quote. I am not making an attack on you personally; others over the years have said things similarly enough that I am attacking a thought process a group seems to hold.

As always this is often "food for thought" and I hope these words challenge preconceived notions. Perhaps another will challenge back and new diverse thoughts will arise.


I would like to push back on the idea that slowing down can only happen because the players aren't playing right. There's only so much you can do to figure out your turn beforehand, because the situation is constantly changing. If your ally kills the opponents standing next to you, you don't need to cunning action disengage anymore.

For one i don't think most of us believe that it is *only* happening because players are not paying attention. Excluding beginners i can be so bold as to say 90-95% are because of not paying attention. Sadly that is nearly enough to be "virtually" all.

Secondly while the situation does change the actions you can take will always be far more limited. And there is always a game plan in your mind; even if it boils down to attack, attack, attack!

Your first example kind of defeats your argument. If anything your ally killing that enemy limits your actions as you no longer qualify to disengage. Why were we disengaging? If you were only planning one simple turn ahead we might have a problem.

If the group of enemies mostly make their saves against the AoE spell, they're still going to be there for you to deal with. Etc. Your argument is for a changing battlefield and, again, this one seems to completely dismantle your argument; better than the first no less...


I often think out my turn ahead of time, but i can't know what i'll do before it's my turn, as the situation i'm playing in doesn't stay the same.no argument from me there though I say the objectives do stay the same barring a narrative/GM created external force affects the battlefield.


Also, i seem to be reading between the lines here that every player needs to be able to keep up. Correct.
(But I also think your taking it in the worst possible light)

It's not much but in a cooperative rpg experience I expect a player or gm to...

...have basic social skills
...have basic literacy skills
...have basic arithmetic skills.

If you care you will keep up. Perhaps not on day 1 but there will be the day.


To that i have to say is that new players are in fact allowed to play, and not everyone is a crunchmaster 1000.I agree 110% and have yet to say otherwise. And a crunchmaster 1000 is not required. 2 + 2 - 1 X 3 is more math than the game usually throws at you and I consider it part of basic arithmetic.


If your character is new, if you haven't encountered this rule (interaction) before, or if you're otherwise not as good at dealing with all the rules of 5e, you still get to play. Indeed! You (new player) can still play.

Do you (new player) have the social skills to ask for help? Do you have the ability to read and comprehend parts of the core rule book? Do you have the dedication to devote ten minutes of your life to record, on your sheet, the most common actions you took last session with all permanent mods added on?

A string of Nos to these might bring me to the conclusion of "perhaps D&D is not for you?". This might be due to your age or perhaps D&D isn't doing it for you. Regardless I don't think either party is going to enjoy gaming together; perhaps the group can bond over a different activity?


Gatekeeping based on mechanical skill is not okay. Completely true... it is not okay. Unfortunately I believe that 99% of said gatekeeping is done by the people on the outside of the gate...


And 5e can be deceptively difficult, especially if you haven't played it before. Just take a look at hiding discussions, spell interaction discussions and the like in this very forum to see how finicky getting the rules right can be, even if you're experienced. Ask for help and it will be given.


Sure, there are some players who aren't engaged. There'll be some who could certainly do better. But by no means are they the only ones who need some time, or do they justify dunking on anyone who doesn't want to rush themselves when they're here to have fun.
No argument here.


Many others here have voiced reasons why attention might be low. Few has been new player focused.

[Hytheter]

Causes of slowness: barbarian adding handfuls of damage dice and mods that change round by round, battle master fighter waiting for results from saves & effects from his hits because it changes his next move/attack

Monks are horrid for this too. "I attack. Make a con save. Damn. I attack again. Roll another con save. Damn, guess I'll flurry to be sure." You can't just roll all your attacks together because you don't know which, if any, will benefit from the stun and you may or may not want to flurry depending on what you're trying to achieve and how much Ki you're saving for later.


anything where lots of saves are rolled and you have to wait for everything to be added & subtracted & halved & killed & etc., etc., etc.

Relatedly, effects with multiple damage types are a real pain when resistances and the like come in to play.

[animorte]

4. ...Phones.
This is exactly why I don't recommend digital character sheets and digital dice rolling and digital everything. I would rather transport all of the extra stuff to make it easier for everybody else so we can have a better experience around the table.



RP vs. G.
The game gets in the way of the story.
The story gets in the way of the game.

A song as old as time.
Brilliant, but sadly true most of the time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Relatedly, effects with multiple damage types are a real pain when resistances and the like come in to play.

This. Especially if the player doesn't know that some of it is different (resisted/immune/vulnerable).

[Cheesegear]

Wow... you really don't like players do you.

So firstly not everyone starts the game having played it a lot of times before.

Great. Let's play this out.

How many sessions does it take for someone to learn the difference between an attack roll and a damage roll and that the modifiers are not the same? They spend every turn attacking.
How many times should someone need to be told they don't need to roll to hit with Magic Missile? Magic Missile is their most-used spell.
How many sessions should someone go without being able to find their initiative on their own character sheet? They roll Initiative 4-8 times per session.
How many times does someone need to be told that Ranged attacks have Disadvantage when a hostile is within 5 ft.? A Longbow is their main weapon.
How many times should you tell someone that they have to spend a full Action to take their Shield on or off?


In my experience players generally are pretty good with any ability that appears on their character sheet. If its on a list in front of them they don't forget it.

Then you and I have different players, and your players, aren't the problem. Your players aren't what this thread is about.

In short; When is a new player no longer a new player? When do you say 'You should know this by now'?

[Telok]

This. Especially if the player doesn't know that some of it is different (resisted/immune/vulnerable).

Isn't players not knowing the details & stats of what they're fighting the normal state of the game?

Really, the description "medium humanoid figure with plate armor, closed helm, and a sword" has basically become useless in our game because it could be humanoid, shrunk giant, fey, undead, construct, ooze, or any of dozens of outsiders and come with practically any ability printed in a monster stat block or spell. Heck, we had one that was a half-dragon illithid one time and I wouldn't be surprised if we fight one that's a super intelligent hive mind swarm of ferrets.

Quite often, if things aren't blindingly obvious, our casters open with 2-3 different cantrips to test resistances & immunities before starting in on the bigger guns.

[Dr.Samurai]

This is a pretty regular complaint whenever mechanics are discussed/introduced into the game, and I need help understanding exactly what people think the game is supposed to be.
Now, I understand D&D has a history of mechanical minutiae in previous editions that could absolutely become a chore to try and keep track of, but 5e is basically on the polar opposite of that problem, so it seems like the complaint about slowing the game down comes up all too often.

If mechanics are problematic because they "slow down the gameplay," what exactly is gameplay supposed to look like at "normal" speed?

I could be wrong, but I've gotten the impression over the years that people basically expect 5e to play itself, and anytime you're asked to do some mechanical homework, keep track of a thing or two, etc, the complaints about bogging/slowing down the game come out of the woodwork.
It comes off to me like 5e has coddled lazy players (and let's face it - most ttrpg players are lazy! Something something, can't even bother to read your class let alone the PHB... :smallbiggrin:) but I don't want to point fingers at a community based on a hunch.

No one wants to go back to 3e's dozen different bonuses/penalties that may or may not stack, or 4e's even worse problem with the same, but IMO keeping track of a bonus or two, or a round-to-round status effect is the expectation of gameplay, isn't it?
This is an excellent post. To hear people talk about the game sometimes, it's as if there should be no choices in the game at all during combat.

In my experience, inattentive players and players that don't know their characters is a large part of the problem. We have a player playing a wizard on our weekly roll20 game, and we all swear he is like... watching videos or playing a video game or something on his side of the screen. He is constantly asking questions that we already know the answers to because the DM gave it to us in his narration, he is constantly surprised at the state of the battlefield when his turn comes up, etc. Then we have to wait for the time honored tradition of "wizard goes through his spells to figure out what to do, then goes through the battlefield to figure out how best to do it, then changes mind and picks another spell, all while asking/confirming with the DM".

Another player never remembers their class features. Another player's instinct is to deviate from normal expected behavior and probe the DM for literally any other type of action to take apart from "attack, move, cast a spell".

But the "extra dice" and "damage types" etc., these things, to me, are absolutely normal and don't "slow the game down". They ARE the game. A monk hitting with unarmed strikes and forcing saves against the stunned condition IS the game. Complaining that they slow the game down is complaining that the game has features to use.

Spells get egregious though. So I would say, outside of the game, it's players that aren't paying attention or don't know the rules. Inside of the game, spell resolution brings the game to a halt.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Isn't players not knowing the details & stats of what they're fighting the normal state of the game?

Really, the description "medium humanoid figure with plate armor, closed helm, and a sword" has basically become useless in our game because it could be humanoid, shrunk giant, fey, undead, construct, ooze, or any of dozens of outsiders and come with practically any ability printed in a monster stat block or spell. Heck, we had one that was a half-dragon illithid one time and I wouldn't be surprised if we fight one that's a super intelligent hive mind swarm of ferrets.

Quite often, if things aren't blindingly obvious, our casters open with 2-3 different cantrips to test resistances & immunities before starting in on the bigger guns.

Yes. It is the normal state, but I don't use resistances and immunities all that frequently. And it's not until later, when people are throwing around things like flametongue weapons, etc. (ie split damage types) where things get bad. If you're just throwing a cantrip or even a regular spell, it's either all resisted/vulnerable/immune or not. It's the mixed damage types that get (a small amount) obnoxious.

I'm considering shifting the mixed damage type abilities (including smite, greenflame blade, flametongue weapons, et al) to simply convert the damage type to <new damage type> as well as (depending on the ability) adding damage. So a smite would only do radiant damage instead of <weapon> + radiant. It's a mixed bag--some times very much a buff, other times very much a nerf (becomes all or nothing instead of having that reliable weapon damage for magical weapons). But haven't gotten more than just a "hmm, maybe this might work well".

[KorvinStarmast]

In my experience, inattentive players and players that don't know their characters is a large part of the problem. that is my experience.

But the "extra dice" and "damage types" etc., these things, to me, are absolutely normal and don't "slow the game down". They ARE the game. A monk hitting with unarmed strikes and forcing saves against the stunned condition IS the game. Complaining that they slow the game down is complaining that the game has features to use. +1

[Xervous]

In short; When is a new player no longer a new player? When do you say 'You should know this by now'?

It’s like the purpose of the Internet, I’ll know it when I see it (or my patience runs thin).

When people don’t want to learn it’s a matter of misaligned expectations. I screwed up in not elaborating enough, they screwed up in not asking more and then not speaking up.

The last time this was an issue the player in question dropped after expressing their dislike.

[Telok]

Yes. It is the normal state, but I don't use resistances and immunities all that frequently. And it's not until later, when people are throwing around things like flametongue weapons, etc. (ie split damage types) where things get bad. If you're just throwing a cantrip or even a regular spell, it's either all resisted/vulnerable/immune or not. It's the mixed damage types that get (a small amount) obnoxious.

I'm considering shifting the mixed damage type abilities (including smite, greenflame blade, flametongue weapons, et al) to simply convert the damage type to <new damage type> as well as (depending on the ability) adding damage. So a smite would only do radiant damage instead of <weapon> + radiant. It's a mixed bag--some times very much a buff, other times very much a nerf (becomes all or nothing instead of having that reliable weapon damage for magical weapons). But haven't gotten more than just a "hmm, maybe this might work well".

Yeah, yeah. You'll want to take a hard look at the once-a-turn things too. Zealot barbarian in our game has like a ten line itemization (theres a magic axe and I think a feat in there too) of his hits on roll20 and keeps having to add or subtract stuff the d&dbeyond sheets don't catch. Maybe have it max out at half of one and half of the other. Your smites end up half radiant & half weapon. Halves, doubles, and quarters are all usually OK to deal with. Can cut down on the "moar dice adds" syndrome by moving to flat out max damage on a crit.

The cantrips aren't an issue, even EB spam is generally fast since the player & DM are used to it from regular attention. It seems more dice math and continually modifing numbers or amounts of dice that's the big issue at out table. Especially anything changing in the middle of a process.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It seems more dice math and continually modifing numbers or amounts of dice that's the big issue at out table. Especially anything changing in the middle of a process.

The bold part is exactly the big thing, and where a lot of "it's not much extra complexity" stuff falls down hard. Conditional "modifications" (ie stuff that can't just be written down as flat numbers and dice on the sheet and only updated on level up) to damage or resolution rolls (ability checks, saving throws, attack rolls) are murder on game speed. Especially when they cascade and change the decision-making process for the rest of the turn. And heaven help us all if it's a table lookup. Especially a conditional or nested one (as I've seen in other games, where one result tells you what to roll on table A, the result of which tells you what to roll on table B). DO NOT WANT.

Heck, for the slow players I've played with, even Sneak Attack being once per turn is a break in the flow, at least when using TWF. "I get this extra damage, but only if X and not Y" (where for Sneak Attack
X == has not triggered this turn + has advantage OR has ally adjacent
Y == does not have disadvantage

I can put up with the problems around mixed damage types. Annoying, but resistance and vulnerability don't come up all that frequently with mixed damage types, so I mostly just gripe about it. But larding things up with more conditionals on hit]2\ and I'm going to collapse into a whimpering puddle. Especially for monsters. Players, at least, can take some of the load off for their own stuff. I trust them to do so (modulo things they shouldn't know about up front, which will always exist). But monsters I have to handle all myself.

Sure, in a VTT, most of these things can be automated. But properly automating them means either
a) you've got someone expert in whatever macro/automation language the VTT uses. Which are frequently obtuse in the extreme. And usually slows down the level up process[1] and requires constant maintenance.
b) you're working with pre-packaged material. Which means homebrew breaks everything.

[1] We use Foundry VTT for one party. It still doesn't do the Watchers Paladin aura bonus to the paladin himself, either the regular Paladin 6 one OR the increased initiative. So I have to go in and modify the initiative rolls depending on positioning. Could it be fixed? Probably. But it's a pain to get reliable. And it does horribly with conditional damage (such as a spider's venom that does piercing damage and then [poison damage| 1/2 poison damage] depending on the save. It just tries to spit the entire thing out, leading to some really high apparent damage rolls.

[2] Battlemaster maneuvers are a (very minor) example of this. One that's basically ok in my book, because they're player-side and generally small things. But it's still a decision to make after you attack once, but before you can roll the next attack. I prefer my features to "stand alone", rather than being riders on the Attack action. Even if that means making them much more powerful (because you're giving up much more to use them).

[KorvinStarmast]

[1] We use Foundry VTT for one party. It still doesn't do the Watchers Paladin aura bonus to the paladin himself, either the regular Paladin 6 one OR the increased initiative. So I have to go in and modify the initiative rolls depending on positioning. Could it be fixed? Probably. But it's a pain to get reliable. And it does horribly with conditional damage (such as a spider's venom that does piercing damage and then [poison damage| 1/2 poison damage] depending on the save. It just tries to spit the entire thing out, leading to some really high apparent damage rolls. While I added it manually, it's the weapon of warning one that isn't giving me advantage. the "OK, +4 is close enough" works.

[PhoenixPhyre]

While I added it manually, it's the weapon of warning one that isn't giving me advantage. the "OK, +4 is close enough" works.

Ah. That I can fix easily enough. Done. There's an entry under "special features" on the main page of the character sheet that has to be toggled on, the weapon doesn't automatically do that for whatever reason.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ah. That I can fix easily enough. Done. There's an entry under "special features" on the main page of the character sheet that has to be toggled on, the weapon doesn't automatically do that for whatever reason. Woot, off I go! :smallsmile: Works.

[greenstone]

I agree, people slow the game down, not rules.

In my experience, the slowdown most often comes from two things.

First, not paying attention.

Player: Which monster is most injured?
GM: Weren't you paying attention? *points* That one.
Player: OK, what sort of weapon is that monster using?
GM: The same thing it hit you with last turn, a spear.
Player: Did anyone hit it with fire? Is it resistant?

I have a couple of players who don't seem to start their turn until it is, well, their turn. It seems like the start of their turn is the first time they look at the battlefield, count the monsters, ask the GM about monster health levels, ask every other player how badly injured they are, and so on. And that is before they even begin to think of their actions this turn.

Second, not knowing features. Or at least, not having them written down where they can find them.

Player: I cast magic bolt!
GM: You are 70 ft from the monster, is that in range?
Player: Ahh, don't know, hang on. *picks up PHB, starts flipping through pages* Oh, wait, that's a Xanathars spell. *picks up XGTE and starts flipping pages*

Or alternatively:

Player: I cast magic bolt!
GM: You are 70 ft from the monster, you are out of range.
Player: No I'm not, I'm sure it's in range.
Another Player: Nope, definitely 60ft range.
Player: No, I'm sure it's more. *picks up PHB, starts flipping through pages*


What can we do to address this?

I tried banning rule books at the table, requiring people to write out rules on character sheets. It worked for a while, but then people just loaded dndbeyond or dndtools on their phones, and used those. When I asked them to put phones away, the cries of, "But my character sheet is on here!" came back.

I tried a time limit on turns (initially 30 seconds, but I wanted it to be less), but that got unpleasant really quickly.

I also tried not letting players talk off turn (so that when the inattentive player asked "what are you planning to do next turn?" the other players just looked at them). That did speed up the game, but made it less fun with all the banter gone. It also made them work together less. I hoped it would prompt them to announce things on their turn ("Hey everyone, I plan to fireball next turn") but (1) they didn't, and (2) the inattentive player wouldn't have paid attention anyway.

I ran popcorn initiative for a while. I loved it, the players not so much. It did speed up the combat, because all the players planned their turns at the same time and discussed things, all engaged with the game. The action resolution (the bit where players often drift off) went by really quickly, because all we did was roll dice and move fogures.

In all seriousness, am I an ogre for expecting the players to have things writen down on their character sheet? Is it too much to ask the bard player (a bard! smallest number of features ever!) to know what range cutting words is without looking it up in the PHB every single session?

There was a comment upthread about how horrible the character sheets are. Agreed 100%.

Whew, that turned into a rant. Sorry about that, but my hobby time is precious and it —s me off when it is wasted.

As an anecdote, not long after 5E came out I joined a game, at a lowish level (2? 3?), as a paladin (if I remember right). First combat, my first turn, I said, "Atack that one *roll* hit this AC do this damage, bonus action *rolls*, move *moved figure on grid*, done." and finished my turn in a little under 30 seconds. Everyone at the table looked at me and asked what I'd missed out, because there's no way I could have finished a turn so quickly.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I agree, people slow the game down, not rules.

In my experience, the slowdown most often comes from two things.

First, not paying attention.

Player: Which monster is most injured?
GM: Weren't you paying attention? *points* That one.
Player: OK, what sort of weapon is that monster using?
GM: The same thing it hit you with last turn, a spear.
Player: Did anyone hit it with fire? Is it resistant?

I have a couple of players who don't seem to start their turn until it is, well, their turn. It seems like the start of their turn is the first time they look at the battlefield, count the monsters, ask the GM about monster health levels, ask every other player how badly injured they are, and so on. And that is before they even begin to think of their actions this turn.

Second, not knowing features. Or at least, not having them written down where they can find them.

Player: I cast magic bolt!
GM: You are 70 ft from the monster, is that in range?
Player: Ahh, don't know, hang on. *picks up PHB, starts flipping through pages* Oh, wait, that's a Xanathars spell. *picks up XGTE and starts flipping pages*

Or alternatively:

Player: I cast magic bolt!
GM: You are 70 ft from the monster, you are out of range.
Player: No I'm not, I'm sure it's in range.
Another Player: Nope, definitely 60ft range.
Player: No, I'm sure it's more. *picks up PHB, starts flipping through pages*


What can we do to address this?

I tried banning rule books at the table, requiring people to write out rules on character sheets. It worked for a while, but then people just loaded dndbeyond or dndtools on their phones, and used those. When I asked them to put phones away, the cries of, "But my character sheet is on here!" came back.

I tried a time limit on turns (initially 30 seconds, but I wanted it to be less), but that got unpleasant really quickly.

I also tried not letting players talk off turn (so that when the inattentive player asked "what are you planning to do next turn?" the other players just looked at them). That did speed up the game, but made it less fun with all the banter gone. It also made them work together less. I hoped it would prompt them to announce things on their turn ("Hey everyone, I plan to fireball next turn") but (1) they didn't, and (2) the inattentive player wouldn't have paid attention anyway.

I ran popcorn initiative for a while. I loved it, the players not so much. It did speed up the combat, because all the players planned their turns at the same time and discussed things, all engaged with the game. The action resolution (the bit where players often drift off) went by really quickly, because all we did was roll dice and move fogures.

In all seriousness, am I an ogre for expecting the players to have things writen down on their character sheet? Is it too much to ask the bard player (a bard! smallest number of features ever!) to know what range cutting words is without looking it up in the PHB every single session?

There was a comment upthread about how horrible the character sheets are. Agreed 100%.

Whew, that turned into a rant. Sorry about that, but my hobby time is precious and it —s me off when it is wasted.

As an anecdote, not long after 5E came out I joined a game, at a lowish level (2? 3?), as a paladin (if I remember right). First combat, my first turn, I said, "Atack that one *roll* hit this AC do this damage, bonus action *rolls*, move *moved figure on grid*, done." and finished my turn in a little under 30 seconds. Everyone at the table looked at me and asked what I'd missed out, because there's no way I could have finished a turn so quickly.

Goes to my point earlier in the thread that the Character Sheets are Crap. You say write it down. Where? The front page has about 3 lines to write down attacks with very little room for any detail. The spell page is buried at the back, also with no space.
DnD has to be the only game where there is no space for the most critical information.

[Cheesegear]

I don't remember the conversation exactly, but:

The party is Level 5.
We've been playing approximately 10 sessions with these characters.

DM: Cleric, your turn.
Cleric: *Looks up from phone* ...Uhh what's happening?
DM: The Wizard is down, the Fighter is on 8 Hit Points, and there are two hostiles within 5 ft. of you.
Cleric: No problem. I cast Healing Word and Cure Wounds and end my turn. *Looks back down at phone*
DM: First, Cure Wounds is a Touch spell, and also you can't cast two levelled spells in a turn.
Cleric: What? Since when.
DM: Since we've had this discussion every time you've used Spiritual Weapon. We've had this conversation before.
Cleric: Oh yeah. *Spends a minute looking through spells* No problem. I've got just the thing. I cast Prayer of Healing. That'll heal everyone.
DM: ...No.
Cleric: ...Yeah. It says everyone within-
DM: No. It takes 10 minutes to cast. It's not a combat spell. We've been over this. From when you tried to do that last time.
Cleric: ...Ugh. Alright Cure Wounds on the Wizard.
DM: Cure Wounds is a Touch spell.
Cleric: Alright I move-
DM: The two hostiles get Oppurtunity Attacks.
Cleric: WHAT!? Didn't they use their Reaction?
DM: That was last Round.
Cleric: No they didn't.
DM: ...The hostiles had a turn. Scorching Ray dropped the Wizard, and took the Fighter to 8. And then the other guys moved. They had to have had a turn.
Cleric: Wait... casts Spells!?
DM: Yes.
Cleric: Uh fine. I cast Healing Word in the Wizard, and then I cast Inflict Wounds on the hostile next to me.
DM: You can't cast-
[B]Other Player: [Cleric], are you taking the ****? [DM] literally said two minutes ago you can't cast two levelled spells in a turn. One of them has to be a Cantrip. I know that and I don't even cast spells. Are you trolling us? This turn only makes sense if you're trolling us.

This is the worst example I have. But it did happen.

[KorvinStarmast]

In my experience, the slowdown most often comes from two things.
First, not paying attention.
Yes.
And this when I will on occasion say "make a decision, or dodge" when someone can't make up their minds.

Second, not knowing features.
This is what bugs me. You have to know your character. As a fellow player, I have occasionally interjected with "Help me out here, man. I know what my warlock does. Can you make sure you know what your rogue does?"

Player: No, I'm sure it's more. *picks up PHB, starts flipping through pages* Maddening. It didn't bother me when we first started and we were all learning the game, but it's starting to get annoying with players who have been with the game for some years. For noobs? Doesn't bother me.

I tried a time limit on turns (initially 30 seconds, but I wanted it to be less), but that got unpleasant really quickly.
I allow two questions, sometimes three, and then the little clock in my head begins to tick. If the indecisiveness gets beyond a minute, the "make a decision or dodge" comes out along with my reminder: "combat is fast and furious (six second rounds) so be ready to make a decision when it is your turn."


In all seriousness, am I an ogre for expecting the players to have things written down on their character sheet? Is it too much to ask the bard player (a bard! smallest number of features ever!) to know what range cutting words is without looking it up in the PHB every single session?
Not too much to ask.

As an anecdote, not long after 5E came out I joined a game, at a lowish level (2? 3?), as a paladin (if I remember right). First combat, my first turn, I said, "Atack that one *roll* hit this AC do this damage, bonus action *rolls*, move *moved figure on grid*, done." and finished my turn in a little under 30 seconds. Everyone at the table looked at me and asked what I'd missed out, because there's no way I could have finished a turn so quickly. That's roughly my MO. I already have an idea before my turn comes up because I pay attention, but this may be an artifact of how much I like the tactical aspect of D&D combat. Some people don't really get into it as much as I do.

You say write it down. Where? a three page char sheet has spots on the back of page 3 for notes. Also, notes in the margins. in pencil, erasable. :smallbiggrin:

The party is Level 5.

This is the worst example I have. But it did happen. This reminds me of to many sessions. :smallyuk:

I recently removed myself from a game due to how slow (three person party, not yet level 3, because the pace of play was too slow, DM effort was low. The sheer indecisiveness of one of the other two players (we other two had been coaching and helping as questions came up during various sessions) finally got to where I said
"Look, you need make a decision. It doesn't need to be perfect. We, the other two players/PCs will do our best to adapt to any oopsies, because we are a team. Trust us, we have your back." (This player was to the newer player)
I was told that this was too aggressive, so my response was something like
"I can't, and won't, play in this group if you won't trust me to be a good team player. That's my whole thing."

[animorte]

We actually use a tiny hourglass. A minute-glass, in fact. Of course for newer players, everybody is more understanding, but they generally want to know what’s going on. If they don’t know what their character does, one of the more experienced players is sitting next to them for minor concerns. This has also gotten slightly out of hand before in which I basically said, “I appreciate your concern and don’t mind any and all questions outside of the game, but when we sit down at the table, the decision making on rules is up to the DM.”

[Easy e]

If you think "the game" is the mechanics.... then I feel sorry for you. After all, the core mechanic of GM based TTRPGs is that the GM decides..... and that is what makes them great.

"The game" is the interactions and decisions that must be made to achieve objectives and goals, with the mechanics only being guidelines to help determine success/failure of the player.

[Thrudd]

What would really help 5e to speed up, especially for newer players, is having all your mechanical options in each round laid out plainly.
I agree with the flaw in character sheet presentation. It shouldn't be left up to the player to think of explicitly listing their character's actions, bonus actions, reactions- these categories of actions are the core mechanic of combat, there should be a page or section of page dedicated to combat options. You need three tables for each category of action, bonus action, reaction, with the options available to all characters already printed. They need to be long enough that you can list your typical combat spells alongside everything else you can do.

You should know what your options are and be ready to go when your turn comes around. I abide by the same rule for the enemies. Flipping through books only happens when it isn't your turn- if you're wildshaping or summoning things, have a list and statblocks of everything you can shape into or summon in front of you. That's another thing that should be an optional page for character sheets, a series of statblocks for creatures you commonly interact with- familiars, mounts, wildshapes, summons.

I am also a proponent of having time limits for deciding combat actions. Your character has six seconds, I'd say 30 seconds to make your decisions is more than enough. I like giving players a five minute time limit to talk strategy after they see the table and roll initiative. Then on your turn, 30 seconds to decide on actions; obviously it can take more than 30 seconds to resolve things. If you want more than one combat per game session in 5e, things need to keep moving.

[Cheesegear]

Maddening. It didn't bother me when we first started and we were all learning the game, but it's starting to get annoying with players who have been with the game for some years. For noobs? Doesn't bother me.

'I don't like it when players don't understand the rules.'
OMG YOU HATE NEW PLAYERS. GATEKEEPER!

No. Nobody is robots. We are people. We understand that new players are new. We understand that new characters have different abilities that you may not have used before.

...What I get angry at, is when we're six sessions in and you still don't understand the ability or spell...Or even a basic rule. You've been playing for a year and you're still getting confused about why you can't cast S-spells with no hands free. The rules haven't changed because you changed classes. Why do you insist on using a Longbow when hostiles are within 5 ft. of you!? We've been over this!

I've had people at my job fired in significantly less time, for less.

But we're friends! It's just a game! We're here to have fun! What's wrong with wasting everyone's time?

[greenstone]

…he is constantly surprised at the state of the battlefield when his turn comes up,

I had this last session. A fire elemental rose up from a lava pool so I placed a new figure on the board and described the fire monster rising out of the molten rock, dripping lava and flames, and attacking a PC. A couple of players have their turns, then one player looks up from whatever they were doing, sees the fire elemental figure, and goes, "What's that?"

*sigh*

[KorvinStarmast]

I had this last session. A fire elemental rose up from a lava pool so I placed a new figure on the board and described the fire monster rising out of the molten rock, dripping lava and flames, and attacking a PC. A couple of players have their turns, then one player looks up from whatever they were doing, sees the fire elemental figure, and goes, "What's that?" The correct answer to that was "A hemorrhoid demon" followed by putting on the following Johnny Cash song: Ring of Fire. :smallbiggrin:

[greenstone]

The correct answer to that was "A hemorrhoid demon" followed by putting on the following Johnny Cash song: Ring of Fire. :smallbiggrin:

*Applauds* You would orginarily win one (1) Internet for that, but I gave that away earlier, so you have to win one (1) Metaverse. :-)