30 minute rounds are killing me.

[Spo]

In my last session, I timed how long it took from when my action was done in combat to when it was my turn again. On average it was 30 minutes (the shortest being 26 minutes and the longest 34 minutes). A single combat was taking 2 and 1/2 hours.

We play online (Skype and Roll20 combo). There are 7 players plus GM. Party is mix of veteran and newish players. Party makeup: 2 bards, rogue, barbarian, sorcerer, ranger, and wizard. I play the sorcerer and when my turn comes up I’m prepared and my round is over in less than a minute. Then I get to wait 29 minutes to do it again.

During other ppl’s turns there are a lot of question asking (some legit some not paying attention), some learning/reading what their character or spell does, some “trying to game the system” trying to get the GM to agree with them on a use of a particular spell effect, forgetting everything their power does then interrupting other players turns by adding addition effects to their target, joking around and table talking.

I know dnd is suppose to be a social game and I have been in other big party games (those were in person though), but waiting for my turn to come up just felt long. Maybe I’m becoming a grumpy old man but considering jumping ship on this online game and just sticking to live games.

[KorvinStarmast]

There are 7 players plus GM. Party is mix of veteran and newish players. Party makeup: 2 bards, rogue, barbarian, sorcerer, ranger, and wizard. I play the sorcerer and when my turn comes up I’m prepared and my round is over in less than a minute. Then I get to wait 29 minutes to do it again. I feel your pain. That describes a few groups I've played in on Roll20. I quit one of them last year. We had 3 players and one of them took forever to take one turn. The night I decided I'd had enough I timed it. It took 13 minutes.

Like you, when it's my turn, I am ready. {1}

Maybe I’m becoming a grumpy old man but considering jumping ship on this online game and just sticking to live games. If I could I would, but my wife won't put up with that.

{1} With a few notable lapses when I fell asleep late at night (2230 or later, having been up since 0500) during a few sessions with PP and the crew, which I am determined not to let happen again. Getting old stinks

[GooeyChewie]

I prefer live games for the same reason. Even if it takes just as long to get back to you, you get to interact more with the other players on their turns. Sadly, the realities of time and distance make my only currently active campaign an online one.

[Keltest]

There are 7 players plus GM.

I found your problem. I will never DM for a group larger than 6 players, and 4 is preferred.

[da newt]

Complex combats take a long time. In order to challenge a large party (7 PCs) the DM has to bring many bad guys and/or a very complex BBEG w/ lair actions and legendary actions and terrain and ... It takes time even for proficient Players.

But yeah - Players that aren't engaged and ready to go are frustrating. Hopefully they can be trained up pretty quickly - but that takes effort (a good coach) and a person who wants to become more efficient (a good student).

[sithlordnergal]

We play online (Skype and Roll20 combo). There are 7 players plus GM. Party is mix of veteran and newish players. Party makeup: 2 bards, rogue, barbarian, sorcerer, ranger, and wizard. I play the sorcerer and when my turn comes up I’m prepared and my round is over in less than a minute. Then I get to wait 29 minutes to do it again.

During other ppl’s turns there are a lot of question asking (some legit some not paying attention), some learning/reading what their character or spell does, some “trying to game the system” trying to get the GM to agree with them on a use of a particular spell effect, forgetting everything their power does then interrupting other players turns by adding addition effects to their target, joking around and table talking.


Gonna say this is your biggest time sink. I actually have a party of 7 myself, and when we started out on Roll20 we had the same issue. I had one or two veterans, one of which is a rules lawyer, and a handful of new players. One round would take a good 30 minutes or more. As people became comfortable with the system and learned what their abilities and spells did, our rounds became a LOT shorter. I haven't timed it in a long time, but we are well under 30 minute rounds.

One thing you can talk to the DM about is having the party plan out what they're gonna do between their turns.

[Unoriginal]

I found your problem. I will never DM for a group larger than 6 players, and 4 is preferred.

Have to agree.

An experienced DM can handle 7 players, but that doesn't mean it's a nice experience for them or the players.

[JLandan]

Too many players is a problem for live as well as online games. And for the same reasons.

Game slowdowns are usually one of the following:
Unprepared DM
Unprepared Players
Too many Players
Newbies

There's not much that can be done about unprepared DMs other than pause play until the DM is up to speed.
We once had a DM who had never read the adventure and was trying to run it as he was reading it... ugh!

Unprepared players are much the same. Each player is responsible for knowing what their character can and cannot do. If the player does not know, they should pause the game until the player is up to speed.

Newbies are really just grossly unprepared players. They should be assisted whenever needed, by DM or other players. Do not let them get a dim view of the game! If there are many newbies in the game, go ahead and play slow.

When there are too many players, it can go smoothly; but only if everyone is up to speed. Indecisive players will kill the pace, even if it isn't too many players. It also comes back to preparedness. Sometimes a DM should impose a pass on a turn if it's taking too long. Or play with a timeclock.

If the slowdown is too many questions, the problem is either unprepared DM or players. If the issue is just flat-out indecision, I would recommend practice games with few players and a patient DM, so the player can get a better handle on the game. Or if the DM is indecisive, a few patient experienced players and many practice games.

I have an employee who is new to the game. She's in an online group that has played 3 (!) 2 hour sessions and her group has yet to make any kind of d20 check. No encounters. One escape that was narrated, not played. Over six hours of play. I do not understand. The sessions are a week apart, so unpreparedness cannot be an excuse.

[clash]

I had a similar problem with rounds talking too long. One thing I did to remedy this is I post monster stats. This allows players to pre roll and also use macros for high level play

[Mastikator]

I empathize with you OP and feel your pain. I (as a player) once was in a combat that lasted for 3 rounds in 4 hours. One player actually picked up the PHB and read their class features for 30 minutes, on their turn. Never again. When I DM I run the 30 second rule, a player has 30 seconds to decide what they do (if it takes 5 minutes to resolve their action then so be it), no dilly-dallying, questions/arguments about rules are taken after combat.

Talk to your DM to talk to your players about planning their turn on other players' turns. Also talk to your DM about not accepting players arguing that their spells/rules should work a certain way during combat, and encourage them to ask in advance.

[Oramac]

I feel your pain. One of the times I ran Storm King's Thunder I had a player who both started and ended the campaign as a newbie. It was one of the most infuriating experiences I've ever had as a DM. Even during the last fight of the campaign (after playing weekly for two years), we still had to explain how to make an attack roll.


Talk to your DM to talk to your players about planning their turn on other players' turns. Also talk to your DM about not accepting players arguing that their spells/rules should work a certain way during combat, and encourage them to ask in advance.

This. First things first. Talk to the offending parties. Most likely, the newbies, rules lawyers, and DM. See what can be done.

[Keltest]

I feel your pain. One of the times I ran Storm King's Thunder I had a player who both started and ended the campaign as a newbie. It was one of the most infuriating experiences I've ever had as a DM. Even during the last fight of the campaign (after playing weekly for two years), we still had to explain how to make an attack roll.



This. First things first. Talk to the offending parties. Most likely, the newbies, rules lawyers, and DM. See what can be done.

I've known somebody who made it through 3 campaigns like that.

[Oramac]

I've known somebody who made it through 3 campaigns like that.

You are a better person than I. I'd have politely asked the person to learn or leave shortly into the second campaign.

[Kvess]

There are 7 players plus GM.

I'm not surprised that rounds are taking 30 minutes if you have seven players at the table. Every person that you add will increase the time between moves exponentially, not linearly, as more players will not only spend more time interacting with the DM, but also other players at the table.

As you all spend 30 minutes waiting for your turn, both in initiative and outside of it, attention is going to drift which will only aggravate the issue.

[Monster Manuel]

Virtual tabletops and online games are a lifeblood for a lot of groups, where getting together in person just isn't possible. But they do add a layer of complexity, and I've seen the problem of the 30 minute round get worse in an online environment.

I was in a 7 or 8 player game in-person for a couple years. Vast difference in peoples' experience with the game, from complete newbies to veteran players. Combat went fast, and wasn't the problem...in person it was easy to help the new players with questions and keep the energy level high. The biggest drag on game time was "discussing" tactics and what to do next.

In more recent experience, I'm in a 6 player online group, mostly veteran players. Things move along pretty well, but the biggest slow-downs are usually technical issues with the vtt system. Trying to figure out what layer the bad guys tokens are on, or why the entire map is black but only for half of us, or it insists that I'm on fire for some reason. We recently spent almost 20 minites in a fantasy grounds session trying to get my rogue's sneak attack to work. Inquisitive rogue, made my investigation check, but also had allies threatening the target. Should have worked, it just wouldn't go off. We were running a test combat with new characters, so we wanted to figure out what was broken...otherwise we just would have said "roll 4d6 and the DM can add the total to your damage" and moved on. Having the virtual tabletop is a huge benefit in a lot of ways, but even one player hitting a tech glitch, and it can really slow down play. D&D is not the most complex rule system out there, but it is a complex rule system and a lot can go wrong online.

(For the record, the issue with the sneak attack turned out to be something wonky with the lighting, so it thought I had disadvantage from dim light and so was disqualifying SA.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Virtual tabletops and online games are a lifeblood for a lot of groups, where getting together in person just isn't possible. But they do add a layer of complexity, and I've seen the problem of the 30 minute round get worse in an online environment.

I was in a 7 or 8 player game in-person for a couple years. Vast difference in peoples' experience with the game, from complete newbies to veteran players. Combat went fast, and wasn't the problem...in person it was easy to help the new players with questions and keep the energy level high. The biggest drag on game time was "discussing" tactics and what to do next.

In more recent experience, I'm in a 6 player online group, mostly veteran players. Things move along pretty well, but the biggest slow-downs are usually technical issues with the vtt system. Trying to figure out what layer the bad guys tokens are on, or why the entire map is black but only for half of us, or it insists that I'm on fire for some reason. We recently spent almost 20 minites in a fantasy grounds session trying to get my rogue's sneak attack to work. Inquisitive rogue, made my investigation check, but also had allies threatening the target. Should have worked, it just wouldn't go off. We were running a test combat with new characters, so we wanted to figure out what was broken...otherwise we just would have said "roll 4d6 and the DM can add the total to your damage" and moved on. Having the virtual tabletop is a huge benefit in a lot of ways, but even one player hitting a tech glitch, and it can really slow down play. D&D is not the most complex rule system out there, but it is a complex rule system and a lot can go wrong online.

(For the record, the issue with the sneak attack turned out to be something wonky with the lighting, so it thought I had disadvantage from dim light and so was disqualifying SA.)

This whole mess is one reason I don't try to enable automation on my VTT. Sure, it can speed things up. Until the computer gets a bug up its butt and does the wrong thing and refuses to do the right thing.

[Telok]

I know dnd is suppose to be a social game and I have been in other big party games (those were in person though), but waiting for my turn to come up just felt long. Maybe I’m becoming a grumpy old man but considering jumping ship on this online game and just sticking to live games.

It only gets worse if you track it longer. Screenshot of a spreadsheet for an all veterans group in person: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cv3fIN1RDxRP3dThqjfEpTYT8mRrhKW5/view?usp=drivesdk

Interestingly it's the warriors who take longest, because of the numbers of different rolls that are adding different values and waiting on updates from the GM between every subpart of their action.

[elyktsorb]

Maybe I’m becoming a grumpy old man but considering jumping ship on this online game and just sticking to live games.

This is literally just a person issue, I've played live games where people take forever in their combat too. I've gone out of my way to help people with documents so they can know what to do during their turn and they still just don't seem to consider what they should be doing until it is their turn.

[Atranen]

How long have you been playing with this group? With 7 players, some new, and online play, that amount of time is unfortunately not surprising. That's a hard group in general and online makes it worse.

If it's relatively new, I'd try to stick it out. I've had groups like this before, and as people learn their characters and/or drop out, it should improve.

But if it's been a long time and the group seems stable, maybe it's just not going to be a good experience. That's a bummer.

[Spo]

For some additional background, this is a lvl 5 group so it’s not like we are dealing with tier 3 & 4 play that can get involved. About half the party I’ve played with for several years, the other half about 10 sessions or less.

Thinking of posting a question to the group about how ppl think the pace of the game is going? Maybe I’m the odd man out and the 7 others are fine with how things are going. If that’s the case then I’ll simply bow out of the group - no hard feelings - just looking for something different.

Thoughts on this approach?

[False God]

Even at 2 minutes per person (which is my personal maximum time limit on turns), that's 15 minutes per round at 7 people, discounting however many NPCs are in play. Double that doesn't surprise me at all, especially with noobs and disinterested players.

I'd wager your DM either isn't capable, or isn't interested in handling them and prodding them to go faster and interrupt less. Not much you can do about it other than find another table.

[Tawmis]

In my last session, I timed how long it took from when my action was done in combat to when it was my turn again. On average it was 30 minutes (the shortest being 26 minutes and the longest 34 minutes). A single combat was taking 2 and 1/2 hours. We play online (Skype and Roll20 combo). There are 7 players plus GM. Party is mix of veteran and newish players. Party makeup: 2 bards, rogue, barbarian, sorcerer, ranger, and wizard. I play the sorcerer and when my turn comes up I’m prepared and my round is over in less than a minute. Then I get to wait 29 minutes to do it again.
During other ppl’s turns there are a lot of question asking (some legit some not paying attention), some learning/reading what their character or spell does, some “trying to game the system” trying to get the GM to agree with them on a use of a particular spell effect, forgetting everything their power does then interrupting other players turns by adding addition effects to their target, joking around and table talking. I know dnd is suppose to be a social game and I have been in other big party games (those were in person though), but waiting for my turn to come up just felt long. Maybe I’m becoming a grumpy old man but considering jumping ship on this online game and just sticking to live games.

From my own experience...
I've been playing D&D since 2nd Edition. I'm an old man.
And a few years back (just prior to the pandemic) - I began running D&D for a friend of mine and her friends - none of which (except said friend, who'd only played D&D for a few months) had played D&D.
It was seven people.
So they were all new and learning - and I was going slow. First few sessions, they were purposely easy fights where there was no way (short of very bad luck) that the party would lose these fights. It kept it short and sweet as they learned different spells and the difference between A Strength Savings Throw vs a Strength Check, etc etc.
However, once the party hit level 3 - I felt confident that they had a good grasp of their characters and how it worked. So it was time to kick it up a notch.
Now, because there were 7 players (1 Rogue, 1 Bard, 1 Cleric, 1 Fighter, 1 Barbarian, 1 Ranger, 1 Wizard) - I needed to increase the complexity of the fights.
This meant more creatures typically at this level. This also meant initiative and combat was going to take forever. Because now it's 7 players, plus six monsters. That's 13 things "taking a turn."
Even if everyone knew EXACTLY what they wanted to do - that was like 1 minute per person - 13 minutes, before the next person's turn.
The problem is - it never works out that way. As combat goes, someone's plans change - as the monster they were going to target goes down or a player goes down - so now they need to rethink their plans. So now on a good day, everyone's taking roughly 2 minutes - so 14 minutes per player, and typically 1 minute per monster for me as I describe what they're doing and roll their attack, figure out damage, ask if it meets or exceeds said player's AC. That's now at least 20 minutes. On a good day, per round, for combat.

Now add to the fact - like in your game - it's not in person. Someone who is waiting 20 minutes for their turn to come by may begin surfing the web, looking at their phone, etc., being distracted - as you said - because they're waiting. This leads to when it gets to their turn they're like, "OK, so what happened?" So now the DM is explaining things again. Which slows down the game further.
It's less of a problem, I've seen/found, when it's in person. People don't have their laptops to surf the web. And some may glance at their phone, but in person, I typically ask everyone to turn their phone sounds on and put it in a basket (less distraction, but if they get a text that they may need to address, they will hear it!) For the game of 7 people I ran in person, I didn't do this phone thing, because I understood it was going to be a bit before it got to be someone's turn.

Smaller games, I've found are the way to go. Less people worry about speaking over everyone. Combat goes much faster, keeping everyone engaged. I run a game I call "Off Week" that's me and three of my players from my normal game I run - and I immensely love that game - because everyone talks and banters and RPs so much more than my other game I run (that coincidentally also has 6 or 7 players and is completely remote now post pandemic).

[Mastikator]

For some additional background, this is a lvl 5 group so it’s not like we are dealing with tier 3 & 4 play that can get involved. About half the party I’ve played with for several years, the other half about 10 sessions or less.

Thinking of posting a question to the group about how ppl think the pace of the game is going? Maybe I’m the odd man out and the 7 others are fine with how things are going. If that’s the case then I’ll simply bow out of the group - no hard feelings - just looking for something different.

Thoughts on this approach?

That's a good idea. I think though if you've seen people needing recaps on their turns it's because of the turns taking too long for them as well.

[deljzc]

I strongly feel there is just "too much" of everything in D&D right now. Granted that opinion will not make this on-line group happy. People that are emersed in the game as much as everyone here loves options and a million possible doors to go down in play styles and character design.

But I think that is terrible for actual game play. Characters now have so many options in combat. There are WAY too many spells. There are "combos" of mover. It's like the game decided to take the "World of Warcraft" combat design (sequenced moves and cooldowns) and try to make that into a roll playing game. To me it's awful.

This game is "Roll Playing". Not intricate combat design. There is nothing wrong with simple combat or repetitive combat moves. Fighters should be swinging their swords every round. And if that's a simple attack, so be it. It doesn't need to be 5 things with cooldowns and bonus actions on top of bonus actions or waiting to unleash some combination of moves yielding to maximum damage per round calculations down the gnat's ass.

I mean, I guess that's exciting for you, but to me that is terrible for everyone else at the table. Just my opinion. I've been a fan of this game forever and I can't deny the success of 5th edition for today's generation. Something is certainly working. So I accept I'm in the minority and move on or make table rules that favor my style of play (and try to find players that agree with me).

I just think there are too many races. Too many classes. Too many spells. Too many combat optinos. Too much. That doesn't make the game more enjoyable to me and just clutters up game play to the Nth degree.

[KorvinStarmast]

I just think there are too many races. Too many classes. Too many spells. Too many combat options. Too much. That doesn't make the game more enjoyable to me and just clutters up game play to the Nth degree. Yes. Bloat (which happens with every edition). D&D 5e works fine with the Basic Rules party: 1 Fighter, 1 Wizard, 1 Cleric, 1 Rogue.

[Segev]

One thing you could try - which may or may not help, depending on how well the players work together, but should at least get GROUPS of players engaged at once - might be to suggest that players who act one after another with no monsters between them can act "simultaneously." That is, all of them take a group turn, together. If 3 players act between the goblins and the dire wolves in a fight, and then after the dire wolves, 4 players have their turns before the goblins go again, you can have the group of 3 take their turns together, and the group of 4 take their turns together.

The group of three whose turn it is then are all engaged at once as they coordinate what they're going to do and execute their plan. Same with the group of four. It may or may not speed up the rounds - it may even slow them down more as the players discuss what to do - but it will at least mean fewer players are waiting for their chance to participate at any one time. And, while it is a buff to the players because they aren't locked into a strict turn order, it won't impact how important initiative boosts are, or anything of the sort, the way "we go/you go" does.

[Telok]

Yes. Bloat (which happens with every edition). D&D 5e works fine with the Basic Rules party: 1 Fighter, 1 Wizard, 1 Cleric, 1 Rogue.

And even then with all veterans, few monsters, simple empty rooms, and in person you're still looking at average 10 minute rounds where a couple people are only engaged for a minute or two each turn.

Generally I've found a good way to increase engagement is more and meaningful off turn actions. D&D doesn't do this, I find the people paying attention off turn in D&D are those with counterspell. But decoupling reactions from requiring the book defined triggers & hardcoded actions, not having OAs take a reaction, and sticking some "more than 1/round" resources for them on a shortrest, all increases players paying attention.

[stoutstien]

And even then with all veterans, few monsters, simple empty rooms, and in person you're still looking at average 10 minute rounds where a couple people are only engaged for a minute or two each turn.

Generally I've found a good way to increase engagement is more and meaningful off turn actions. D&D doesn't do this, I find the people paying attention off turn in D&D are those with counterspell. But decoupling reactions from requiring the book defined triggers & hardcoded actions, not having OAs take a reaction, and sticking some "more than 1/round" resources for them on a shortrest, all increases players paying attention.

Adding more complexity to "off turn" options is always riding a thin line with causing more slow down than it prevents. It can quickly spin out of control as tables drift towards action economy maxing and the general design paths that occur in reaction to that.

It's doable but it's difficult to do well.

[Ionathus]

I'm sorry, that sucks. I've been in the same boat recently the last time I was on the other side of the DM screen. Your DM is probably somewhat aware of the slowdown, but when you're the DM you're constantly engaged with the action so you don't notice just how long it is for everyone else.

As others have said, ask the other players to start planning their turns. Of course, the situation can always change and throw your plans off-kilter, so instead of planning "the one thing" they're going to do on their turn, they should make a shortlist of objectives and how they would achieve each one. That way if Plans A and B are disrupted by the previous turn-taker, Plan C is still workable with a few tweaks.

Obviously it's not your place nor your responsibility to train your fellow players on proper combat etiquette. But hopefully there's an opportunity for you to share the tricks in this thread to make them more considerate participants.

[follacchioso]

That's nothing compared to Play-by-Post games. I've played combats that lasted more than one month of real-life time, despite all players being active and interacting with the game daily. That's especially true when players are from different time zones.

You may consider embracing that. Play-by-Post games on Discord are slow, but at least there is no pressure to take your turn immediately. You can just enable notifications and check your phone once or twice per day, and that will give you your daily dose of D&D.

[Easy e]

As a player, I recommend creating a chat thread and prompting other folks to talk about what they are going to do in their turn in that chat. That asks them to think about their next turn before it comes up and talk about it so when it happens they are ready.


As a GM, I typically ask Player A what they are doing, have them start determining the outcome via dice rolling and then go to Player B and ask what they are going to do. I then go back to Player A for results and finish them off, while Player B starts rolling for the results. I then keep this timing/chain going forward down the initiative order to speed up player. This also avoids a player trying to monopolize the spotlight.


Sorry this is happening to you.

[KorvinStarmast]

And even then with all veterans, few monsters, simple empty rooms, and in person you're still looking at average 10 minute rounds where a couple people are only engaged for a minute or two each turn.

Generally I've found a good way to increase engagement is more and meaningful off turn actions. D&D doesn't do this, I find the people paying attention off turn in D&D are those with counterspell. But decoupling reactions from requiring the book defined triggers & hardcoded actions, not having OAs take a reaction, and sticking some "more than 1/round" resources for them on a shortrest, all increases players paying attention. Not sure what assumptions you are making. I take less than a minute to decide, describe, and act.
Why?
I pay attention to everyone else's turn, including the monsters, and I don't stop my brain.
I am in a constant state of evaluation of my options.

The takeaway for everyone? Stay engaged and you won't be the one who slows combat down.
When the whole group adopts this attitude it's a whole lot less time between your turns. Your "ten minutes" becomes five or less.
I've Seen This Done.
But sadly, it's rare.

Also, in on line games "Um" (the most commonly spoken word over Dischord) is an indication that You Were Not Ready and You Are Stalling.
:smallfurious:

Spread the word. Get on board the Crusade against Slow Play. :smallfurious:

It won't go away by itself.

[Telok]

Adding more complexity to ".....

It's doable but it's difficult to do well.
Well, like I said, D&D can't really manage it as currently structured.


Not sure what assumptions you are making. I take less than a minute to decide, describe, and act.
No assumptions for me, I have data. I don't know what assumptions you're making. If it weren't for counterspell I'd spend 90% of this edition D&D combat as engaged as a lump on a log, and in combats without caster enemies that's what happens.

[Segev]

Also, in on line games "Um" (the most commonly spoken word over Dischord) is an indication that You Were Not Ready and You Are Stalling.
:smallfurious:

I, too, frequently take turns that take less than a minute, but being told it's my turn always comes as a mild surprise because I didn't realize the last guy was actually done yet, so I generally do say "um" first. :P

[elyktsorb]

Also, in defense of people who don't take their turn immediately, other people can often be the issue. I can't count the number of times I've tried taking my turn, only for other players to talk, or do things that pull attention away from me. I don't want to speak when someone else is speaking so I just won't say anything, and then when everyone else stops talking and I'm about to go, the DM will be like 'X, you there?' like I was just completely spaced out not paying attention instead of waiting for others to stop talking.

Then you usually have to go 'yeah I'm here' and then you hope no one else says anything to interrupt. Or if even the DM ends up interrupting because he forgot something.

[Waazraath]

That's long :(

A small thing my group used last time we played online to speed up the rolling, was ignoring the digital dice and use real ones, and just say out aloud what was rolled. That requirers mutual trust, but it goes imo a (little bit) faster than digital rolling.

[Spo]

Here is an update to my situation.

Yesterday was our day to play. During the day I sent out a text asking everyone if they were okay with the pace of the combats and mentioned the 30 minutes per round and asked if I'm just being a "grumpy old man?" This sparked a conversation where some believed the last combats were complex and needed more time, some people saying people need to pay more attention to what is going on and other saying people need to plan out what they are going to do before their turn arrives. One person voiced concern that this conversation "was frustrating to him" because "it makes it sound too mechanical" to him and he thought him being a newer player was being targeted in the conversation. There was no conclusion to the conversation. Before the game started, the Dm told us the newest player that just joined us 2 sessions ago was dropping out of the game because of being in a different timezone was killing her. Also another player didn't show up because she had to work late (she mentioned this before the conversation took place).

The gameplay that night ran very smooth with one person saying this was their best roll20 experience. People genuinely seemed to be paying attention and combat play was fast paced. Think the conversation helped (along with having 2 less people).



A small thing my group used last time we played online to speed up the rolling, was ignoring the digital dice and use real ones, and just say out aloud what was rolled. That requirers mutual trust, but it goes imo a (little bit) faster than digital rolling.

Funny you mention this because the digital dice was the thing that was slowing me down because Roll20 was acting laggy for me. About half the party uses digital dice and the other half roll off screen. There is only one person that seems to have insane luck with the dice when he rolls offscreen and even brags about how he gets the rolls he needs all the time (even when he needs to roll a low number he can get nat 1's with ease).

[Mastikator]

Here is an update to my situation.

Yesterday was our day to play. During the day I sent out a text asking everyone if they were okay with the pace of the combats and mentioned the 30 minutes per round and asked if I'm just being a "grumpy old man?" This sparked a conversation where some believed the last combats were complex and needed more time, some people saying people need to pay more attention to what is going on and other saying people need to plan out what they are going to do before their turn arrives. One person voiced concern that this conversation "was frustrating to him" because "it makes it sound too mechanical" to him and he thought him being a newer player was being targeted in the conversation. There was no conclusion to the conversation. Before the game started, the Dm told us the newest player that just joined us 2 sessions ago was dropping out of the game because of being in a different timezone was killing her. Also another player didn't show up because she had to work late (she mentioned this before the conversation took place).

The gameplay that night ran very smooth with one person saying this was their best roll20 experience. People genuinely seemed to be paying attention and combat play was fast paced. Think the conversation helped (along with having 2 less people).



Funny you mention this because the digital dice was the thing that was slowing me down because Roll20 was acting laggy for me. About half the party uses digital dice and the other half roll off screen. There is only one person that seems to have insane luck with the dice when he rolls offscreen and even brags about how he gets the rolls he needs all the time (even when he needs to roll a low number he can get nat 1's with ease).
Seems like a total win to me. Your conversation trimmed a ton of fat off the bacon.

[elyktsorb]

Funny you mention this because the digital dice was the thing that was slowing me down because Roll20 was acting laggy for me. About half the party uses digital dice and the other half roll off screen. There is only one person that seems to have insane luck with the dice when he rolls offscreen and even brags about how he gets the rolls he needs all the time (even when he needs to roll a low number he can get nat 1's with ease).

This is so odd to me, though I know of a long list of reasons roll20 would lag. The thing I see that tends to lag roll20 the most are induvial sheets. I was once in one of those discord server big group setting things, and they had people who would make your character, and they would include 'everything' even at like, lvl 2, so I'd have all my spells to max level on my spell section and such.

Depending on how many sheets are in a room and all the other stuff, having to load all that makes roll20 lag, I know that as one reason for sure.

[Easy e]

I am glad the conversation helped.

Sometimes the first step is simply creating awareness of the issue, and that speeds people up.

[Tanarii]

This is a DM and other players problem. DM needs to keep the pacing tight, and players need to be on their game.

With your group size, I'd expect no more than 8 minutes per round, maybe 9 if the DM is running lots of different kinds of creatures and needs an extra minute.

Edit: good on you bringing it up and seeing some improvement.



Generally I've found a good way to increase engagement is more and meaningful off turn actions. D&D doesn't do this, I find the people paying attention off turn in D&D are those with counterspell. But decoupling reactions from requiring the book defined triggers & hardcoded actions, not having OAs take a reaction, and sticking some "more than 1/round" resources for them on a shortrest, all increases players paying attention.
Yeah, WotC D&D doesn't do this very well. Turn-based initiative in general doesn't.

But I've still seen this same problem when playing Gloomhaven. And at least in that game everyone decides some general plan for their turn at the same time, before executing one after the other. OTOH it still has specifics that needs to be decided when the turn comes up, and that can delay. But generally speaking it just moves the decision delay to the initial general planning, where two people are ready right away and two people need three minutes.

Conversely, I don't recall this being a huge problem in BECMI or AD&D process of declare, roll side initiative, resolve.

[greenstone]

I hate them too, and I'm at the point where I think I have to be very harsh.

The biggest issue I have is players who try to plan the entire battle on their turn. That is, when it gets to their turn, they start asking every player what their character is going to do, who they've attacked, what their health is, and so on.

I'm OK with this at the start of the battle, but it is every single turn.

Friendly coversations haven't helped, reminders of time haven't helped.

It did get better when I just banned talking when it wasn't your turn, but in-battle taunting and snarking is part of the genre, and battles were flat without it.

I am thinking of imposing a rule, "On your turn you can ask three questions with short answers. Asking any more requires an Investigate Action."

I want to encourage short questions like, 'Bard, how badly are you injured?" and "GM, which ogre is the most hurt?" and "Anyone, has the enemy mage used counterspell?"

Just not entire planning meetings.

Ideas?

[Tanarii]

Impose a rule that if they talk plans on their turn, their character is doing it out loud, so enemies are hearing what they say (although may not understand depending on language). And cut them off after six seconds.

If they want to make battle plans they should do that before combat. Not during.

[Tawmis]

I want to encourage short questions like, 'Bard, how badly are you injured?" and "GM, which ogre is the most hurt?" and "Anyone, has the enemy mage used counterspell?"


I resolved the above - but ruling out "meta gaming."

Bloody = Either half or more of your HP down.

So...

In my game, you can't say, "I am down 25 hit points." Nor will I say, "Ogre A looks the most wounded."

The only answer you can give is:

"I am bloodied" or "I am not bloodied."

Similar, I would say "Ogre A and Ogre C are bloodied, but Ogre B is not."

So Ogre A may still have 20 hit points left, while Ogre C only has 3 left. The players would not know.

This has helped immensely in my game. And kept this more on the edge.

Someone may say they're not bloody yet - but may just have 2 HP over their bloody mark.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I resolved the above - but ruling out "meta gaming."

Bloody = Either half or more of your HP down.

So...

In my game, you can't say, "I am down 25 hit points." Nor will I say, "Ogre A looks the most wounded."

The only answer you can give is:

"I am bloodied" or "I am not bloodied."

Similar, I would say "Ogre A and Ogre C are bloodied, but Ogre B is not."

So Ogre A may still have 20 hit points left, while Ogre C only has 3 left. The players would not know.

This has helped immensely in my game. And kept this more on the edge.

Someone may say they're not bloody yet - but may just have 2 HP over their bloody mark.

I'll generally say one of a few things (in descending order of HP):

"Been hit"--HP < max. This is important for a few features and spells, so saying it speeds things up.
"Bloodied"--HP < 1/2 max. This doesn't directly matter much, but I'm starting to tie more and more mechanics to it.
"Nearly dead"--HP small enough that one more good hit will bring them down. Usually single-digits. Because I'm a nice person (citation needed), I don't want players to feel bad about wasting a big smite on something with like 3 HP. But they do anyway, so...yeah.
"Dead/Unconscious"--0 HP and not making death saves because either dead or non-lethal. This is for everyone who doesn't have a name that's been said.
"Dead and death saves"--0 HP and making death saves. Named monsters in my games get death saves, this alerts people to that status.

The goal being to keep things moving by giving enough info to resolve features without using numerical HP (which is a minor annoyance to me personally).

[LudicSavant]

Stop wasting time with every player having to ask for basic descriptions of how injured something is and just give em a darn HP bar, or descriptions of comparable utility. (If they ever have to ask, the description was inadequate).

[Segev]

Indeed, trying to forbid using the numbers that represent the status of the PCs and NPCs only means players play more cautiously, spend more resources than they probably need to (sometimes to an excessive amount), and are tracking and converting numbers in their own heads while not admitting to it so that they can make some sort of informed decision.

Just because the players know the numbers doesn't mean the characters are aware of them, but the characters can see pretty clearly how serious injuries are and how close to that fatal slip-up a creature might be. I can understand concealing the hp total of a foe, but even that should be something the PCs have a roigh guess on. There is a reason video games usually do give an hp bar for players to see on most enemies.

Making players play guessing games about the general state of the battlefield and its occupants is generally not going to improve your ttRPG combat.

[Tawmis]

Indeed, trying to forbid using the numbers that represent the status of the PCs and NPCs only means players play more cautiously, spend more resources than they probably need to (sometimes to an excessive amount), and are tracking and converting numbers in their own heads while not admitting to it so that they can make some sort of informed decision.
Just because the players know the numbers doesn't mean the characters are aware of them, but the characters can see pretty clearly how serious injuries are and how close to that fatal slip-up a creature might be. I can understand concealing the hp total of a foe, but even that should be something the PCs have a roigh guess on. There is a reason video games usually do give an hp bar for players to see on most enemies.
Making players play guessing games about the general state of the battlefield and its occupants is generally not going to improve your ttRPG combat.

For me, the problem was - my players (seven of them) - all but one - had never played D&D. They were familiar with World of Warcraft and RPG video games.

And they were using combat like video games.

Once I removed explaining, "Oh, Ogre A has 20 hp left" - the players, as you said - did play more cautiously. Especially when it came to looking at other players.
The way I see it - each turn in D&D "time" is 6 seconds long.
Your eyes are scanning a battle field in front of you - I'd say it'd be very difficult to know your Paladin has 30 HP, your Wizard has 18, your Druid has 19, Ogres 2 and 3 have 19 each, Ogre 1 is down to 3 hp, and Ogre 4 is down to 10.
No way, in 6 seconds of scanning a chaotic battle scene are you going to get that kind of precise information.
Seeing who is wounded, or badly wounded (bloodied) would be something you might pick up looking at 7 to 8 different people, sure.
And still before those 6 seconds of D&D time is up, you still need to move, cast, whatever.

Once I took away saying how much HP everyone had - they stopped treating it like a video game and actually also began to RP more.

It was like once I broke that connection of "HP Bars" as you might say - they understood it was a roleplaying game. Not a hack and slash.

They were making better moves - not saying, "OK, well the Paladin goes after me, he can probably take down Ogre 1 since it has 3 hp, So I will focus on Ogre 4 since he's down to 10 and hit him with a fire bolt. On average I do 5 to 8 damage. If I get lucky and roll full damage, I could take that Ogre down. So that's what I will do."

Milage varies, naturally per DM and per their players. This, I found has worked out really well for me, no longer saying HP and not allowing players to say their HP numbers. Just bloodied or not bloodied. (I don't care if they say very bloody, too - indicating they're very hurt, as long as they don't say exactly how much HP they have left).

[Tanarii]

Talking in meta information vs not is one question to be addressed. On the one side it's the player UI for interfacing with the world, on the other it does drag many folks out of immersion in the world if you do it too much.

But talking tactics during battle is a totally different thing. This is something players should have done when the characters would have done it, before a fight. And if they do it during a fight, it should be what the characters can do, no more than six seconds and anything said is out loud in-world. (Barring some kind of magic or special class feature.)

Allowing it absolutely will result in slowing down combat drastically. As well as almost certainly turning combat from a roleplaying game experience into a board game experience, especially if you use a battlemat. (Edit: which is only bad if you object to those things.)

[KorvinStarmast]

I am thinking of imposing a rule, "On your turn you can ask three questions with short answers. Asking any more requires an Investigate Action." I do two, three if it's a very complicated battle. I can't recommend this strongly enough. For me, it works.

I want to encourage short questions like, 'Bard, how badly are you injured?" and "GM, which ogre is the most hurt?" and "Anyone, has the enemy mage used counterspell?" Yes, that's my general mode. (Occasional environmental questions can be a little longer to make sure the player has tactical understanding).

Just not entire planning meetings I admit that I have gotten a bit short with one group I DM, with "it's not your turn, {X} is making decisions now, wait for your turn" because I have to. I find it to be a bigger problem with on line play than with in person play.

"This is combat, not a debate, what is your decision" has been said by me with some frequency to that group.

My salt marsh group rarely needs that prompt.

[Easy e]

GMs for 6 second rounds games, and similar, simply hold-up 6 fingers on their turn, and slowly count down. At the end of the countdown and no action has been taken they have hesitated and "miss" their turn in analysis/paralysis.

That gets things moving fast! However, it is best to explain this in Session 0.

[opaopajr]

One thing you could try - which may or may not help, depending on how well the players work together, but should at least get GROUPS of players engaged at once - might be to suggest that players who act one after another with no monsters between them can act "simultaneously." That is, all of them take a group turn, together. If 3 players act between the goblins and the dire wolves in a fight, and then after the dire wolves, 4 players have their turns before the goblins go again, you can have the group of 3 take their turns together, and the group of 4 take their turns together.

The group of three whose turn it is then are all engaged at once as they coordinate what they're going to do and execute their plan. Same with the group of four. It may or may not speed up the rounds - it may even slow them down more as the players discuss what to do - but it will at least mean fewer players are waiting for their chance to participate at any one time. And, while it is a buff to the players because they aren't locked into a strict turn order, it won't impact how important initiative boosts are, or anything of the sort, the way "we go/you go" does.

Group Initiative and the Declaration Phase (before Initiative is rolled) are FANTASTIC for speeding things up in my experience! :smallcool:

Basically most people can keep up with 2 maybe 3 sides, so there's only two or three initiative rolls. And the Declaration Phase beforehand requires Players to choose something. I usually ask declared actions around the table and you get a Pass or two before I rule you act confused and dither in place, essentially a skipped turn. Basically like a 5 second rule but with less public speaking pressure as it cycles on through to others who are ready to answer as you're thinking still.

It's an older method from TSR D&D, but those two habits really helped my new players. I think & note what NPCs do, giving time for PCs to decide, I ask Players to declare their PCs' actions & I write those down, then we roll Group Initiative & I and any rules lawyers and active players resolve the mechanics quickly. End result is passive, new, shy, and confused players only have to worry about Declaring their Action, not how mechanics or deeper tactics works.

Now for players who love to use greater complexities like Reactions, Ready, Help, Environ Interact, etc. they'll still be engaged and you can work things out in the shift to Group Initiative. But for all those players who won't, or more truthfully can't, do those things all they have to worry about is Declaring Anything before they Pass too much and Skip their turn in shocked confusion. It works like a song! :smallsmile:

[LudicSavant]

I am thinking of imposing a rule, "On your turn you can ask three questions with short answers. Asking any more requires an Investigate Action."

I want to encourage short questions like, 'Bard, how badly are you injured?" and "GM, which ogre is the most hurt?" and "Anyone, has the enemy mage used counterspell?"

Just not entire planning meetings.

Ideas?

If players are having to ask that many questions, even short ones, then there's a good chance the GM's being overly stingy with the information necessary for players to have meaningful decision points, which makes for unsatisfying gameplay. As one great game designer famously.put it, Fun = Meaningful Decisions / Time

For example, they should 't even have to waste time finding out how badly the Bard is injured, they should just already know that -- if they had to ask, the description of battlefield conditions was not good enough.

[Frogreaver]

I resolved the above - but ruling out "meta gaming."

Bloody = Either half or more of your HP down.

So...

In my game, you can't say, "I am down 25 hit points." Nor will I say, "Ogre A looks the most wounded."

The only answer you can give is:

"I am bloodied" or "I am not bloodied."

Similar, I would say "Ogre A and Ogre C are bloodied, but Ogre B is not."

So Ogre A may still have 20 hit points left, while Ogre C only has 3 left. The players would not know.

This has helped immensely in my game. And kept this more on the edge.

Someone may say they're not bloody yet - but may just have 2 HP over their bloody mark.

That’s cool but It’s just as much metagaming as giving players hp numbers. Bloodied isn’t a narrative condition - it’s just a veiled way of giving players hp info.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That’s cool but It’s just as much metagaming as giving players hp numbers. Bloodied isn’t a narrative condition - it’s just a veiled way of giving players hp info.

At least in my setting, I take the text in the books that says that creatures under half hp often show physical signs of damage while those above so not usually do so seriously.

At half hp is when you start showing superficial injuries. So bloodied, for me, is very narrative.

[Spo]

GMs for 6 second rounds games, and similar, simply hold-up 6 fingers on their turn, and slowly count down. At the end of the countdown and no action has been taken they have hesitated and "miss" their turn in analysis/paralysis.

That gets things moving fast! However, it is best to explain this in Session 0.

Wish I saw more GM have the courage to do this. Instead i keep seeing inattentive players have to be explained the lay of the land when their turn comes up:

Player: "I attack that thing standing next to the tree"

GM: "The hostage?"

Player: "No, the goblin on the wolf"

GM: "The barbarian just killed them."

Player: "So who can I attack?"

GM: "There are 3 goblins that just opened the door and shot at the wizard standing next to you."

Player: "Which one is most injured"

GM: "None have been hit"

Player: "Is there any enemies that are already injured?"

GM: "Your character is taking the dodge action."

Player: "Not fair. Whaaaa"

[LudicSavant]

If you're regularly seeing inattentive players who don't know what's going on, then it may be the fault of the player, but it may also be a sign that the combats are not interesting enough to be riveting, or that the descriptions of the battlefield are not sufficiently informative to give players a strong grounding in the scene and basis for meaningful agency.

Setting restrictions and time limits may help, but I've seen some supposedly 'slow, inattentive' players go to six second rounds without anyone asking, simply by switching to a different (more experienced) GM.

[Tanarii]

Usually inattentive players are sign that combat is taking too long before it gets back to their turn. Which of course, is something inattentive players make worse.

Combat pacing is the DMs to control by setting expectations, and they should. It prevents a death spiral into combat being so boring everyone wants to avoid it. It should be fast & exciting. And IMO just a little scary trying to make quick decisions due to a bit of fog of war / missing total information, and not enough time to consider one's actions perfectly, and certainly no time to try and Pandemic-play (group plan out your tactics for a turn out of character).

[Segev]

Wish I saw more GM have the courage to do this. Instead i keep seeing inattentive players have to be explained the lay of the land when their turn comes up:

Player: "I attack that thing standing next to the tree"

GM: "The hostage?"

Player: "No, the goblin on the wolf"

GM: "The barbarian just killed them."

Player: "So who can I attack?"

GM: "There are 3 goblins that just opened the door and shot at the wizard standing next to you."

Player: "Which one is most injured"

GM: "None have been hit"

Player: "Is there any enemies that are already injured?"

GM: "Your character is taking the dodge action."

Player: "Not fair. Whaaaa"
The allegedly "inattentive" player here may have had his turn entirely planned out, or been adjusting his turn and pouring over his abilities to make sure he had some idea of what to do after the person two turns ago altered the state of the battle with a couple monster deaths that changed his previously-planned turn, and now is caught out after the LAST turn changed the field AGAIN, and is trying to avoid having to replan his entire turn from square one by asking if there are injured enemies because he has some feature he'd been planning to use that requires either an injured enemy or that he drop an enemy if at all possible.

Assuming this exchange is just "inattentiveness" rather than "trying to keep up and failing because he has to keep adjusting his turn-plan" is a bit unfair. None of those questions show inattentiveness, to me; they show somebody who needs the battlefield state updated in his mind. Yes, it sounds like maybe they have a battlemap, but if it's not obvious that the "Thing Near The Tree" is a hostage, that's as much on whoever designed the pog or token or whoever made the choice for the inobvious nature of the figure used to represent the hostage as it is on the player who had originally planned to "attack the enemy near the tree."

The exchange, in fact, shows that the player knew "the thing near the tree" was an enemy who was injured, at least up until the barbarian just killed it right before his turn. He had some sort of plan involving attacking an injured enemy, and the barbarian's turn threw that out of whack. He is now trying to reframe the battlefield and figure out if he can salvage his plan or if he has to make up his turn out of whole cloth again.

Treating this kind of player the way described by "your character takes the dodge action" is basically telling him, "Don't bother trying to use your class features; just tell the DM you attack an enemy and let the DM pick it for you so you don't waste time asking what figures are enemies and what aren't."

[Maan]

As one great game designer famously.put it, Fun = Meaningful Decisions / Time

I need to know who was that!

[opaopajr]

Segev brings up an important point: Individual Initiative continually changes the battlefield state.

That requires a lot of attention, a good deal of system familiarity, and generic tactical understanding.

It's one of the reasons I found the shift from TSR to WotC disappointing because before there was the main (Group Initiative, Group Modifier), but it had two main GM options with (Group Initiative, Individual Modifier) and (Individual Initiative, Individual Modifier). By going with (Individual Initiative, Individual Modifier) it added a lot more overhead -- everyone rolls, everyone has their own mods -- and the game battlefield state changed with greater granularity within a Round (now known as Turns in 5e).

I have seen it be way too much for many people. Further it does not scale well into more populated battlefields. It really was the solution for small duels or melee with a handful of combatants, allowing the dynamic shifts to be enjoyed with full attention.

Sometimes more options are better so a GM can use the right tool for the right moment. :smallsmile:

[KorvinStarmast]

The allegedly "inattentive" player here may have had his turn entirely planned out, or been adjusting his turn and pouring over his abilities to make sure he had some idea of what to do after the person two turns ago altered the state of the battle with a couple monster deaths that changed his previously-planned turn, and now is caught out after the LAST turn changed the field AGAIN, and is trying to avoid having to replan his entire turn from square one by asking if there are injured enemies because he has some feature he'd been planning to use that requires either an injured enemy or that he drop an enemy if at all possible. IME, this is (maybe) a partial problem. reacting to change / chaos is a part of what battle / the fog of war is all about. What I'd suggest any DM do is emphasize to a slow player that your decision doesn't have to be perfect but you need to make one. (Hence my two questions standard, which accommodates the change as the combat flows, and sometimes three questions are needed).
Make a decision.

and figure out if he can salvage his plan or if he has to make up his turn out of whole cloth again.
Make a decision, or dodge. Combat is chaotic, and if the DM keeps the pace up, those who can adapt will do so. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Treating this kind of player the way described by "your character takes the dodge action" is basically telling him, "Don't bother trying to use your class features; just tell the DM you attack an enemy and let the DM pick it for you so you don't waste time asking what figures are enemies and what aren't." Rubbish. I have only rarely had to do this. It starts with "please make a decision" and then "OK, make a decision or dodge" and you know what happens? Players learn not to pull that over analysis / paralysis during combat after that. It was interesting a few sessions back that one of the players mentioned how I'd kept the tempo up during combat ... and all five players commented on how they appreciated how that improved the feel of combat.

I can only think of one player who I have had to apply that caution to with any frequency in this edition. Most people adapt.

You can ask Phoenix, if you like, if I practice what I preach as a player.

We discovered, much to my dismay, that Prismatic Spray is a great spell under certain conditions (get a load of enemies in the AoE) but man _insert frowny face here_ does it slow combat down as it is resolved roll by roll. :smalleek:
We had the other players roll some of the monster saves and a few damage rolls to speed things up.

[LudicSavant]

I need to know who was that!

Sid Meier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier) (perhaps best known as the creator of Civilization, Pirates, and other such games).

[da newt]

I DM AL games quite a bit so many of the players are new, the other players are often strangers, and every time you play it's a bunch of different PCs. This does not promote quick play, but at least it's in person.

The things that I have found help are a quick 'This is combat - it's life or death. You have to pay attention and make quick decisions or you are going to die. You have six seconds to act. Use it well. Do your thinking BEFORE it's your turn.' preamble early in the session which tends to get folks into the idea that they want to stay involved if they want to 'win'.

If a player is asking questions that they should know the answer to because it's been discussed already, I'll RP it as 'your character doesn't know - they weren't paying attention. Make your decision with the information you have. This is the fog of war, all sorts of things are happening quickly, and monsters are trying to kill you.' I try to sell this with an evil smile - isn't this exciting!

I try to pair up new players with a more knowledgeable player to help mentor / explain rules and mechanics. I'll bend over backwards for someone who doesn't know how 5e works, and I'll give newer players suggestions - you can do X, Y, or Z and don't forget your BA and movement. Once I figure out one of my Players struggles to make decisions, I'll give them a chance to let me know they have a plan, and once it's obvious they don't I'll give them a choice of two options.

I also ensure the party has a chance to discuss / plan before starting combat (assuming they aren't surprised) but once we start, 6ish seconds of in character talking is all you get. Once I establish discussions are in character it really helps cut down the extra chatter. I do let other PCs respond in character with a few words / one quick sentence.

I try to always let players know they are up next.

I try to model good decisive efficient turns for my baddies with limited hemming and hawing over the perfect placement of an AOE or a bunch of should he X or Y? I try to talk through my decisions as I make them - the mechanics, the positives and negatives, and then quickly decide and roll. Teaching as I go. I also always use average damage and only roll attacks, saves, and ability checks.

During combat I usually stand and speak more quickly / urgently. I will use prompts like 'the clock is ticking' 'he's about to bite you, what are you doing?' I try to give quick recaps periodically - PC X is down, PC Y is grappled by that guy, the BBEG is bloodied, that caster is concentrating on that AOE ...

Lastly, I tell my players if you are looking at your phone, it better be your character sheet or PHB. You signed up for this game. You need to be here 100%.

And above all else I try to sell this all as positives - features that make the combat encounters better - more exciting - more impactful - more immersive.

[Segev]

IME, this is (maybe) a partial problem. reacting to change / chaos is a part of what battle / the fog of war is all about. What I'd suggest any DM do is emphasize to a slow player that your decision doesn't have to be perfect but you need to make one. (Hence my two questions standard, which accommodates the change as the combat flows, and sometimes three questions are needed).
Make a decision.

Make a decision, or dodge. Combat is chaotic, and if the DM keeps the pace up, those who can adapt will do so. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Rubbish. I have only rarely had to do this. It starts with "please make a decision" and then "OK, make a decision or dodge" and you know what happens? Players learn not to pull that over analysis / paralysis during combat after that. It was interesting a few sessions back that one of the players mentioned how I'd kept the tempo up during combat ... and all five players commented on how they appreciated how that improved the feel of combat.

I can only think of one player who I have had to apply that caution to with any frequency in this edition. Most people adapt.

All I can say is, I would, if I stayed in a game run like this, wind up either dodging every turn, or blasting the party with friendly fire, because I am not given the information needed to simulate what my PC would know. Or my PC is expected to not be able to tell where everyone is and thus should never cast spells or make attacks.

If I'm not playing anybody who can fireball the field, I'd wind up saying, "Fine, DM, I attack an enemy. You pick which one, since you won't give me the time to figure out who's where."

I would then tune out even more from combat, because I have no agency in it.

[Keltest]

So for people who are saying they need 30 seconds to find out which enemy is where and who is alive and what not... do you guys exclusively play in theater of the mind or what? Because especially in the age of online play, all my groups have, at the very least, a white board with relative positions on it so people can see where everyone is at a glance, and more often have a detailed battle map.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So for people who are saying they need 30 seconds to find out which enemy is where and who is alive and what not... do you guys exclusively play in theater of the mind or what? Because especially in the age of online play, all my groups have, at the very least, a white board with relative positions on it so people can see where everyone is at a glance, and more often have a detailed battle map.

Yeah. Was gonna say this. It's one reason I don't do theater of the mind for anything but very simple combats--I as the DM struggle to keep track of where everyone is.

I don't restrict everything to 90 degree angles on a grid, but the grid is there (because the software/chessex mat provides it) as a guide. And markers are added/removed/re-marked as things die.

[Tanarii]

Some players are overthinkers who need to analyze and comprehend all the current information to make a decisions, because to them "eh good enough" is the enemy of perfect. They usually want to play the combat part of the game like a tactical board game, making the perfect move. (As a side note, these players often go a little crazy inside when there isn't a gridded battlemat, instead using TotM or maybe some rough white board diagrams.)

IMX most are not. They like fast paced combat, instinctively embrace perfect is the enemy of good, and will make decisions on the fly with little problem.

The first kind of players really don't like the combat game I run. And there's nothing wrong with that ... BUT they are in the minority. Less so in TTRPG community that IRL (so to speak), since it's heavy on folks who naturally analyze stuff for a living (or are in college to learn to do so), but still a minority.

Really this is one of the bigger things to find out about your players and put them in appropriate groups as much as possible. Or be clear up front what kind of game you run.

[Segev]

Some players are overthinkers who need to analyze and comprehend all the current information to make a decisions, because to them "eh good enough" is the enemy of perfect. They usually want to play the combat part of the game like a tactical board game, making the perfect move. (As a side note, these players often go a little crazy inside when there isn't a gridded battlemat, instead using TotM or maybe some rough white board diagrams.)

IMX most are not. They like fast paced combat, instinctively embrace perfect is the enemy of good, and will make decisions on the fly with little problem.

The first kind of players really don't like the combat game I run. And there's nothing wrong with that ... BUT they are in the minority. Less so in TTRPG community that IRL (so to speak), since it's heavy on folks who naturally analyze stuff for a living (or are in college to learn to do so), but still a minority.

Really this is one of the bigger things to find out about your players and put them in appropriate groups as much as possible. Or be clear up front what kind of game you run.

There is also a DM compatibility issue with whether "perfect is enemy of good" or "Good enough is enemy of perfect." When a DM runs combats that are "too easy" (to many DM's minds) it's easy enough to play a more relaxed style where you just try to do "well enough." But when combats are deadly all the time, and mistakes cost you heavily, making the "Good Enough" choice gets your PC and possibly other players' PCs killed.

[Easy e]

Yes, yes. It is the GM's fault.... again!

If combat takes too long, it is the GM's fault. If a player does not know what to do, it is the GM's fault. If a GM rushes a player, it is the GM's fault. If the GM let's them take too long, it is the GM's fault. If a player does not know their class features it is the GM's fault for not giving them enough time. Combats are too hard, it is the GM's fault.
Combats are too easy, it is the GM's fault. If a player brings a snack no-one likes it is the GM's fault!

No wonder a lot of groups have 1 forever-GM. Who wants to take the blame for all the ills of the game 100% of the time? Very few people would sign up for that!

[Mastikator]

Yes, yes. It is the GM's fault.... again!

If combat takes too long, it is the GM's fault. If a player does not know what to do, it is the GM's fault. If a GM rushes a player, it is the GM's fault. If the GM let's them take too long, it is the GM's fault. If a player does not know their class features it is the GM's fault for not giving them enough time. Combats are too hard, it is the GM's fault.
Combats are too easy, it is the GM's fault. If a player brings a snack no-one likes it is the GM's fault!

No wonder a lot of groups have 1 forever-GM. Who wants to take the blame for all the ills of the game 100% of the time? Very few people would sign up for that!

When you do all the work, everything that goes wrong is your fault :smallwink:

But yeah, sometimes players should shut their ungrateful pie holes if they're not saying "thanks for GMing, you did a great job".

[KorvinStarmast]

All I can say is, I would, if I stayed in a game run like this, wind up either dodging every turn, or blasting the party with friendly fire, because I am not given the information needed to simulate what my PC would know. Hardly. Pay attention and you'll know.

Or my PC is expected to not be able to tell where everyone is and thus should never cast spells or make attacks. This kind of all or nothing hyperbole is more rubbish.

If I'm not playing anybody who can fireball the field, I'd wind up saying, "Fine, DM, I attack an enemy. You pick which one, since you won't give me the time to figure out who's where."

I would then tune out even more from combat, because I have no agency in it. Let's see: defeatist attitude, passive aggressive behavior, maybe work on your social skills a bit. The rest of the table is there to have fun and play a game. Also, it is on the player to know his PC, what the PC can do. <= This is another area where slow play comes from, but I suspect that in your case it's not the issue.

Some players are overthinkers who need to analyze and comprehend all the current information to make a decisions, because to them "eh good enough" is the enemy of perfect. They usually want to play the combat part of the game like a tactical board game, making the perfect move. (As a side note, these players often go a little crazy inside when there isn't a gridded battlemat, instead using TotM or maybe some rough white board diagrams.)

IMX most are not. They like fast paced combat, instinctively embrace perfect is the enemy of good, and will make decisions on the fly with little problem.

The first kind of players really don't like the combat game I run. And there's nothing wrong with that ... BUT they are in the minority. Less so in TTRPG community that IRL (so to speak), since it's heavy on folks who naturally analyze stuff for a living (or are in college to learn to do so), but still a minority.

Really this is one of the bigger things to find out about your players and put them in appropriate groups as much as possible. Or be clear up front what kind of game you run. I dropped out of a group where a player could not make a decision for 13 minutes. An extreme case? Yes, but I'd had enough. I was player, not a DM.

Yes, yes. It is the GM's fault.... again!

If combat takes too long, it is the GM's fault.
If a player does not know what to do, it is the GM's fault.
If a GM rushes a player, it is the GM's fault.
If the GM let's them take too long, it is the GM's fault.
If a player does not know their class features it is the GM's fault for not giving them enough time.
Combats are too hard, it is the GM's fault.
Combats are too easy, it is the GM's fault. If a player brings a snack no-one likes it is the GM's fault!

No wonder a lot of groups have 1 forever-GM. Who wants to take the blame for all the ills of the game 100% of the time? Very few people would sign up for that! Laughed, I did. :smallbiggrin:

[ciopo]

Hardly. Pay attention and you'll know.
Eh, I don't know, I kind of feel what Segev is trying to say.

I know myself and I know my characters, I play with passion, I would fit two more campaign in my week if I could ( currently playing 5 and a half per week, so close and yet so far from that holy grail of a campaign a day:) )

And in theater of the mind style games, I'm that much slower, in spite of of attention, because I ask most basic stuff like "is XYZ close enough for me to charge it and attack" "are mook 1 and mook 2 close enough to each other but far away enough from friendlies that I could (do aoe thing) and hit both of them but not allies/innocent bystanders", you may pretend 6 seconds glances aren't "enough" to get this kind of information, but alas we aren't playing in a virtual reality with first person view, nor we have perfected the mindmeld to have brain to brain communication, therefore unless your description are along the lines of "mook a is 25ft to your left and slighty north", I *will* feel like I lack agency and default to an extreme verbose "covering my bases" description along the lines of "I attack the nearest enemy I can safely reach without provoking attack of opportunity and that doesn't put me in danger of being flanked or pincushioned by ranged attackers" (tack on more and more). Because your 5 minutes description to set the scene conveys somewhat less tactical information than a 6 second glance to a battle map would do for me. Even if it was 1st person actually, since with a group we experimented with 1st person view on Talespire. "battle is confusing" to me feels like a lie, not because *I* would fit in, but because our characters are kinda supposed to be professional

Unless you spend like 25 minutes between each round to somewhat accurately paint the scene, because "your friend Greg the barbarian charged the troll with a mighty swing and blablabla" tells me almost nothing actually actionable, since it's all pretend in our minds and so I might assume I can, I don't know, go straight for some other interactable in the scene that sounded like I could interact with, but it's actually window dressing for the combat and in your mind it was meant to be interacted after the gaurds were dispatched or whatever.


Not in a effort to make the perfect play, but to engage in the scenario the scenario needs to be known, and since the topic is *combat*, distance and positioning matters. Unless we all play dumb "I go for the closest target", which is kinda boring and not-engaging.


I'm sure there are *more* that can be done in theather of the mind, I don't know, simple example, throwing a smoke bomb to screen the party from ranged attackers while we take care of the melee. I know we can "just describe that", but again, unless your description are "big", my assumption that either we and/or the arcehrs are close enough that a (this size) smoke cloud would achieve the desired effect... it's very wiggly, I'm trying to say, and wigglyness kills the tempo



Could you give me a sample of what you would say to describe an average combat scene? That way I can tell you if I'd be slow or fast if I were to play with you, and where I might get tripped up

[False God]

A lot of the discussion around ToTM vs a grid is particularly why I've moved away from D&D as my core game. I'm not terribly interested in the ultra-tactical wargame-lite gameplay anymore. I find ToTM substantially faster, IF and that's a big if, a player can separate themselves from the D&D-esque grid-based tactical mindset.

I'm not dumping on tactical gameplay, only that 5E really isn't the place for it. It's not granular enough for anything resembling tactics to actually matter. 3.5 gives you many more reasons to approach the game tactically, and 4E basically said "here's some tactics for your tactics so you can tactics while you tactics!" But 5E? Not really.

But IME, if a player can separate themselves from the grid, I've generally found they play faster because they're not looking at the table for optimal moves. They're looking at me (when I GM) more, they're listening to other players more, and they're making moves based on what is appropriate to the situation, rather than what is tactically optimal based on the grid. The worst questions I get are "Bob just downed the goblin in front of me, where's the next one?" To which the response is "To your leftish, about twice your movement away, on a rocky outcropping with a bow."

The exact location of this information doesn't really matter. The player is now left with the option to switch weapons, do something else to aid the party, or find some way to reach that goblin on foot. The tactics of the question don't even factor in. The player plays faster because I'm responding to them faster, rather than them staring at the board trying to make the best chess move.

I also find there is a lot of time consumed in moving minis, positioning minis, preventing other minis from getting knocked over, drawing out maps, and people taking maps WAY too literally. Like, I'm doing my best to draw up this forest in the next 45 seconds and then players want to hash out if this tree I drew on a corner of 4 squares is actually taking up all 4, only one 'cause its a little lop-sided, is it the size of a full square, can they climb it? Like, who cares? When I describe the scene as a heavily wooded area they only ask "Is there a tree I can climb to get a good shot?" And instead of waiting for the board to give them a tactically beneficial answer, I can just say "Yes, on your right, but its branches look very tangled, even with a successful climb check, your speed would be reduced going up it." Or maybe "Oh yeah totally there's one just 5 feet away, looks like an easy climb." Depending on what is more thematically appropriate and makes the game more engaging and interesting.

[da newt]

I really prefer a battle mat w/ scribbles and figures - TotM is not my preference by a long stretch, but I do find that TotM works best if a player declares what they want to do in a way that allows the GM to adjudicate it. For example, 'I want to cast fireball where I can hit as many bad guys as I can but not my allies, unless I can only target one baddie then I'll cantrip the nearest threat to me' or 'I'll shoot the most injured target w/ my bow and then hide' etc

If you can skip the questions and just tell the Gm what you'd like to do it allows them to help you achieve your goal as best the situation allows and keeps things moving.

[ciopo]

@False God
Fair, I would probably be fastish with you.

I'm not sure I would have as much fun as usual with this decoupling you mention, because "I attack the closest enemy/most dangerous enemy/squishiest enemy/adjective creature" is leaving it to you to, as you say, adjudicate whose day I am to ruin today.

That is to say, it might not feel like I'm really making a choice, but I'd have to actually play together to really know, devils in the details and all that

I prefer 3.pf, as you say

[icefractal]

I originally liked TotM, but after GMing some games that way I've changed my mind -

Abstract positioning, either fully "position doesn't matter" or "zones" or whatever, is fine. If the rules reflect that. Exact positioning, with a visual representation, is fine. But "exact positioning theoretically exists, and the rules interact with it, but it only exists in the GM's head and is communicated to the players a bit at a time" sucks for anything even a little complex. And I say this from a GM POV.

If you don't want players to be worrying about precise tactical positioning, use a system where exact positioning doesn't matter (or house-rule your preferred system that way).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I originally liked TotM, but after GMing some games that way I've changed my mind -

Abstract positioning, either fully "position doesn't matter" or "zones" or whatever, is fine. If the rules reflect that. Exact positioning, with a visual representation, is fine. But "exact positioning theoretically exists, and the rules interact with it, but it only exists in the GM's head and is communicated to the players a bit at a time" sucks for anything even a little complex. And I say this from a GM POV.

If you don't want players to be worrying about precise tactical positioning, use a system where exact positioning doesn't matter (or house-rule your preferred system that way).

Yeah, as someone sympathetic to TotM, I agree with you. It would work a lot better in a system that doesn't interact with exact ranges and areas. We don't have to go to fixed grids like 4e, but having a visual representation of locations works a lot better for me as a DM and player.

[Segev]

Hardly. Pay attention and you'll know.
This kind of all or nothing hyperbole is more rubbish.
Let's see: defeatist attitude, passive aggressive behavior, maybe work on your social skills a bit. The rest of the table is there to have fun and play a game. Also, it is on the player to know his PC, what the PC can do. <= This is another area where slow play comes from, but I suspect that in your case it's not the issue.

Oh, I know what I can do. The question is, what can I apply now? The battlefield literally just changed, and I want to make sure I understand the situation.

The problem is the "two questions, maybe three" rule. That is on the DM, yes. It's his rule. Even when I dither, I take less time than other players, frequently. I often do have my turn ready to go. It's not a matter of failing to pay attention if I planned everything out with a misconception - such as that that pog there by the tree was one of the goblins, not a hostage, oops - it's a matter of the limits of communication.

If I'm on a strict question and time budget because I haven't perfectly understood how the battlefield changed in the half second since the end of the last turn, it's going to actually slow me down.

Feel free to insist players keep moving. But the moment you have a hard limit rather than a case-by-case judgment, you're already failing as DM. If I wanted hard limits and quicktime action sequences, I'd play the bad Telltale games that came out after Back to the Future.

[Tanarii]

There is also a DM compatibility issue with whether "perfect is enemy of good" or "Good enough is enemy of perfect." When a DM runs combats that are "too easy" (to many DM's minds) it's easy enough to play a more relaxed style where you just try to do "well enough." But when combats are deadly all the time, and mistakes cost you heavily, making the "Good Enough" choice gets your PC and possibly other players' PCs killed.
5e doesn't support that kind of combat play though. On the most dangerous combats, it supports 3 Deadly battles per adventuring day, with a short rest in between. From personal experience, it also supports up to 5 Deadly battles per day with a short rest in between. Those are do not require for every combat, each turn, making/avoiding choices that might get your PC killed. (The very last one of the adventuring day might if you go far past an adventuring day. And that's fine.)

For all combats to require that turn-by-turn would require multiple times Deadly combats, or maybe skipping short rests. And the game definitely doesn't support that, in a multitude of ways.

There are plenty of out of combat decisions that can require that kind of thinking on a regular basis of course. The biggest one being "can we push on and risk the next combat".

[KorvinStarmast]

Oh, I know what I can do. The question is, what can I apply now? The battlefield literally just changed, and I want to make sure I understand the situation.

The problem is the "two questions, maybe three" rule. That is on the DM, yes. It's his rule. Even when I dither, I take less time than other players, frequently. I often do have my turn ready to go. It's not a matter of failing to pay attention if I planned everything out with a misconception - such as that that pog there by the tree was one of the goblins, not a hostage, oops - it's a matter of the limits of communication.

If I'm on a strict question and time budget because I haven't perfectly understood how the battlefield changed in the half second since the end of the last turn, it's going to actually slow me down. It doesn't have to, but there are for sure times in a complicated fight that they will. My usual budget for a player to take their turn is a minute, with a bit more for questions. You may be confusing me with someone who tries to make the PLAYER choose in six seconds. That isn't me.


Feel free to insist players keep moving. But the moment you have a hard limit rather than a case-by-case judgment, you're already failing as DM. If I wanted hard limits and quicktime action sequences, I'd play the bad Telltale games that came out after Back to the Future.

It works at my tables, and it works very well.
Maybe instead of arguing about it, try it at your table.
But, when suggesting that, I am aware that the table needs to have that expectation set in order for it to work. Something about being on the same page, and all that.

Or, just live with 30 minute rounds.

[Easy e]

As a player at a table that was taking too long, I have said, "What can we do to help us all move faster?" Then, listened and tried to do the things they asked.

When I stopped being passive-aggressive I just went to straight aggressive and said, "Hey Rain-delay, I can feel my beard growing over here."

[Frogreaver]

Our biggest slow down is with one player that prefers to chat real life instead of play. He distracts the DM and the game grinds to a halt.

[KorvinStarmast]

When I stopped being passive-aggressive I just went to straight aggressive and said, "Hey Rain-delay, I can feel my beard growing over here." I have on a few occasions, as a player, made similar digs toward the slowpokes.

Our biggest slow down is with one player that prefers to chat real life instead of play. He distracts the DM and the game grinds to a halt. You and the other players have the inherent authority to tell them to stop Wasting Your Time with their digreessions.
If you as a group of players have not done this - censuring the one wasting your time - why haven't you? You'll get the behavior that you put up with.

[Keravath]

Interesting discussion. I find slow play in combat is a combination of factors.
- knowing the tactical situation
- knowing what your character can do
- deciding what your character will do
- executing your plan

.. and each and every step in that process can be slow. Which step or steps slow a specific individual is usually different in each case.

The ability of each person to imagine or picture the situation varies a lot. The DM may describe the scene and one person takes it all in while another is still focusing on the first sentence of the DM's comment (eg. 10 goblins spring from behind cover, two run towards the windlass for the portcullis ... some folks hear the part about the goblins and miss the other descriptive elements).

Some people aren't tactically minded so they just attack whoever is nearest, rather than the ones running to do something bad.

Some people don't focus on one target and instead everyone squares off against whatever is closest (this can easily change the difficulty of any combat).

Some people don't have a great memory. It isn't necessarily that they aren't paying attention but rather than they just don't remember what was said even if it was just a couple minutes ago. For some reason, their brain loses details. This can be worse the more theatre of the mind is involved and the more creatures there are in the combat.

----

So, what can be done? A DM can recognize some of the factors that make specific individuals slower and try to compensate for them. If a player always forgets details, give a 15 second summary at the start of their turn. "6 orcs, these 3 are injured, this one is the most injured". Of course, encourage them to pay attention if that is the issue but sometimes that isn't the issue even though it has the same symptoms.

DM can keep a running update of opponents so that everyone at the table knows and understands what the current situation is.

For newer players, if they are having some troubles figuring out what their character can do then the DM could ask a more experienced player sitting next to them to assist if the player would like the help. Most new players don't mind, they usually feel better and more welcome when they are understanding what is going on better. The assistant can also encourage them to look at what their character can do before their turn comes around. (The DM can drop occasional reminders that everyone should be thinking about what they want to do when their turn comes up).

Knowing the situation and what your character can do, almost always makes the decision process easy and fast. It is usually lack of knowledge that has the player hemming and hawing trying to figure out what might be the best thing to do.

This can also be made faster by the DM running the situations in such a way that perfect decisions aren't required to succeed. Sometimes, if everyone doesn't use focused fire then the combat goes from something the DM thought would be relatively easy to a near TPK. Players don't like to be blamed in such a situation or feel bad for making a mistake. So, it is best if the consequences of making ONE incorrect decision in a combat are modest rather than dire. Otherwise, the player feels the weight of consequences and spends much more time trying really hard to come up with the best course of action which takes far more time than needed.

Finally, we come to my pet peeve which is execution. This is also why I like virtual table tops. When running on roll 20, I have every roll always made with 2 d20s (for advantage, straight roll, or disadvantage as required), always roll damage including crits. The player presses the button two or three times and all the information needed to resolve their turn (including all the correctly calculated modifiers to hit and damage) pops up in 15 seconds (unless the virtual table top lags which is usually not too frequent). As DM, I can then resolve the effects of their turn in a few seconds and move on.

In person, rolling dice can be and mostly is far LESS efficient. When I run my turn as a player, I roll the d20s (one or two as appropriate for advantage or disadvantage), and the damage dice at the same time. If I have multiple attacks, I roll them all at once. I add the modifiers, tell the DM the attacks that hit and the damage (since if I pay attention I usually have a decent idea of the to hit roll needed after the first round - AND if the total is over 20, it usually hits and if it doesn't, the DM will be sure to let us know). My turn can be done in 30 seconds.

However, that is NOT how many players turns go. I have played with folks who do the following when it is their turn ...

- attack decision might actually be pretty fast (though that will vary depending on how well they understand the current scene)
- find a d20 in their dice
- shake die in hand for several seconds then roll it
- look at the character sheet to get modifier (even though it hasn't changed all night - memory issue I commented on above)
- add the modifier (which takes a while because many folks can be slow at mental math)
- asks the DM if the result hits (even in most cases where they should know already)
- if it hits they look for the needed damage die
- shake die in hand for several seconds then roll damage die
- look up the damage modifier
- add it
- report damage to the DM
- rinse and repeat for each attack, bonus action or whatever

The mechanical execution of the one player turn can take 3-5 minutes at times just by itself. In this one aspect, I find virtual table tops and dice to be FAR more efficient.

I also find that the VTT rolling dice keeps everyone happier that the game is being run fairly. As DM, I always show the die rolls of the NPCs/monsters. There is no question of either players or the DM fudging dice that way. I don't like the players rolling their own dice and reporting it because it just seems to seed distrust for many when one player just always rolls better than the rest. "Why does that character just always make all the important saving throws?"

P.S. If the DM is regularly taking 1 minute/NPC to decide and execute their turn then the DM also needs to be thinking ahead, know what the NPC can do, and get more efficient at rolling the dice too :)

[Trask]

I once had an issue at the table with players taking too long, but not from my perspective. One player got very irritated with the rest of the group, and would regularly ask me to employ a turn timer (which I didn't do). Coincidentally (or not), this player wasn't very interested in optimizing her combat effectiveness, but rather was the kind of player who just wanted to see what was in the next room. She would check out often when combat was perceived to take too long, and when it was her turn would just go into autopilot; absentmindedly rolling a die and declare "hit" or "miss". It was never really resolved in that campaign, and I often wonder what I should've done, because I didn't really do anything and that clearly didn't work out.

Looking back I think it can be mitigated with DM massaging, but ultimately it comes down to play preference. Some people are just more strategic than others, and I don't think its a "new player" thing either (although the aforementioned player was new), because I know that as an experienced player I've felt annoyed at my fellow player's time taking their turns, just because whatever was happening outside combat was way more interesting to me, and I wanted to get through more of it.

There comes a point where quantity has a quality all it's own, and getting through 5 faster, less complex and tactical combats and seeing more of the dungeon/the plot is just more fun than one or two very dense tactical combats where not much progress is made. That being said, I do enjoy a good tactical combat, especially when the stakes around it are high.

That player I mentioned at the beginning went on to use the turn timer with great gusto when she ran Curse of Strahd for us. It actually went fine, but there's always a tradeoff of something lost. In this case, not only the focus on tactics, but also some of the casual fun of the table.

[Easy e]

The actual time it takes is secondary to how engaged the players feel during the combat of the round. In "traditonal" D&D mechanics the players declare and resolve their actions, then they wait until the GM and all the other players complete their actions. In essence, when they are not taking an action the player is passive and has no real reason to stay engaged at all. Here are some potential ways to mod the existing D&D rules to be more engaging..... not faster, just more engaging. The real issue is engagement.


1. Don't have the GM roll any dice. Only let the results of the players dice roll matter. Therefore, instead of the DM rolling to hit, when a player is attacked have the player roll the details for themselves. The rounds take just as long, but the players feel way more engaged with what is happening.

2. Homebrew some sort of reaction mechanic that players can use when they are attacked. Again, not going to speed up the actual combat BUT it makes it feel a lot more interesting when you are constantly making decisions/doing something instead of just waiting to remove hit points.

3. Create more situations where interrupts or reactions are possible instead of such a strict turn order. For example, the player can spend a resource in order to "interrupt" and take some action beyond the normal turn order. Perhaps some sort of Meta-Story points, or Battlemaster dice, etc. Perhaps giving everyone a free "held action" with a specific trigger, etc. Or, you could simply expand the range of attacks of opportunity/reactions that all ready exist. Again, it would require some homebrewing but now players are always looking out for when they can use their "reaction" even when it is not their turn.

4. GMs should break up monster Initiative order to create a more varied battle. I.e. Players and enemies should alternate activation whenever possible. Roll for Initiative and stack the players in order, monsters are inserted as needed in the order. Paladin attacks, then a goblin, then the cleric, than a different goblin, then the rogue, then a bugbear, etc. Repeat until all players/monsters have shot. If the monsters outnumber the players, than they get to double up on activations sometimes. Having to constantly react to monster actions force players to stay focused as they can not rely on their own activation supremacy. Again, individual turns are not faster but players are more engaged with the action.


This is not a matter of hyper-tactical vs. not tactical. If you look at the world of "modern" tactical wargames the genre is always experimenting with turn order, activation, action/reaction and other mechanics. Even in these "tactical wargames" turn time and player engagement is a concern for designers. There is nothing worse than waiting 30 minutes for you two dice rolls, and then essentially being on a coffee break until it is your turn.

Engagement makes the difference between 30 minute rounds that are unbearable, and 30 minutes rounds that are good.

[Frogreaver]

The actual time it takes is secondary to how engaged the players feel during the combat of the round. In "traditonal" D&D mechanics the players declare and resolve their actions, then they wait until the GM and all the other players complete their actions. In essence, when they are not taking an action the player is passive and has no real reason to stay engaged at all. Here are some potential ways to mod the existing D&D rules to be more engaging..... not faster, just more engaging. The real issue is engagement.


1. Don't have the GM roll any dice. Only let the results of the players dice roll matter. Therefore, instead of the DM rolling to hit, when a player is attacked have the player roll the details for themselves. The rounds take just as long, but the players feel way more engaged with what is happening.

2. Homebrew some sort of reaction mechanic that players can use when they are attacked. Again, not going to speed up the actual combat BUT it makes it feel a lot more interesting when you are constantly making decisions/doing something instead of just waiting to remove hit points.

3. Create more situations where interrupts or reactions are possible instead of such a strict turn order. For example, the player can spend a resource in order to "interrupt" and take some action beyond the normal turn order. Perhaps some sort of Meta-Story points, or Battlemaster dice, etc. Perhaps giving everyone a free "held action" with a specific trigger, etc. Or, you could simply expand the range of attacks of opportunity/reactions that all ready exist. Again, it would require some homebrewing but now players are always looking out for when they can use their "reaction" even when it is not their turn.

4. GMs should break up monster Initiative order to create a more varied battle. I.e. Players and enemies should alternate activation whenever possible. Roll for Initiative and stack the players in order, monsters are inserted as needed in the order. Paladin attacks, then a goblin, then the cleric, than a different goblin, then the rogue, then a bugbear, etc. Repeat until all players/monsters have shot. If the monsters outnumber the players, than they get to double up on activations sometimes. Having to constantly react to monster actions force players to stay focused as they can not rely on their own activation supremacy. Again, individual turns are not faster but players are more engaged with the action.


This is not a matter of hyper-tactical vs. not tactical. If you look at the world of "modern" tactical wargames the genre is always experimenting with turn order, activation, action/reaction and other mechanics. Even in these "tactical wargames" turn time and player engagement is a concern for designers. There is nothing worse than waiting 30 minutes for you two dice rolls, and then essentially being on a coffee break until it is your turn.

Engagement makes the difference between 30 minute rounds that are unbearable, and 30 minutes rounds that are good.

Interesting, I actually find players go as a block (player order doesnÂ’t matter) then monsters go as a block or vice versa to be more engaging than breaking up the initiative.

IME this works because
1. Newer/ distracted players can take the time the other players go through their actions to think about theirs. They arenÂ’t holding anyone up and know they can act once they figure it out.

2. Tactical players will stay more engaged because theirs nothing worse than another PC positioning themselves in the middle of a big could have been AOE and so instead of waiting till the last and over analyzing everything they will tend towards jumping in before others interfere with their preliminary plan. This takes engagement both around enemies and Allys.

There’s just less overall player passivity and when it comes to going from passive to active one player or even a few aren’t holding the group up nearly as much.

[False God]

The actual time it takes is secondary to how engaged the players feel during the combat of the round. In "traditonal" D&D mechanics the players declare and resolve their actions, then they wait until the GM and all the other players complete their actions. In essence, when they are not taking an action the player is passive and has no real reason to stay engaged at all. Here are some potential ways to mod the existing D&D rules to be more engaging..... not faster, just more engaging. The real issue is engagement.
Agree, the speed of combat, and frankly, any details about it at all, any approaches, everything all comes down to keeping the players engaged.


1. Don't have the GM roll any dice. Only let the results of the players dice roll matter. Therefore, instead of the DM rolling to hit, when a player is attacked have the player roll the details for themselves. The rounds take just as long, but the players feel way more engaged with what is happening.

2. Homebrew some sort of reaction mechanic that players can use when they are attacked. Again, not going to speed up the actual combat BUT it makes it feel a lot more interesting when you are constantly making decisions/doing something instead of just waiting to remove hit points.
I agree HEAVILY with reaction mechanics, but I don't think players should be rolling attacks against them. I'd argue a better solution would just be for the DM to just decide if an attack hits, misses, etc... as is thematically appropriate to the scene and maintains tension and engagement. You could have the players roll in the form of a reactive defense, but I personally as a player and DM, enjoy when certain elements are completely out of my control.


3. Create more situations where interrupts or reactions are possible instead of such a strict turn order. For example, the player can spend a resource in order to "interrupt" and take some action beyond the normal turn order. Perhaps some sort of Meta-Story points, or Battlemaster dice, etc. Perhaps giving everyone a free "held action" with a specific trigger, etc. Or, you could simply expand the range of attacks of opportunity/reactions that all ready exist. Again, it would require some homebrewing but now players are always looking out for when they can use their "reaction" even when it is not their turn.
This goes back to the previous element, but again I'm a bit fan of reactive combat. I do feel it slows things down, but I think a GM can overcome that by speeding up their own pace of these reactions. Reactive combat does not work well when each decision to react slow, when players and GMs have to look through a laundry list of special features and abilities. Reactions themselves should feel fast and the decision to use them should be made fast. But this is a skill and system familiarity issue more than anything. The options themselves should not necessarily feel simple but they should be intuitive. A player should ideally be able to declare that they "Block" or "Parry" or "Dodge" as a reaction and the reaction works as they imagine it should.


4. GMs should break up monster Initiative order to create a more varied battle. I.e. Players and enemies should alternate activation whenever possible. Roll for Initiative and stack the players in order, monsters are inserted as needed in the order. Paladin attacks, then a goblin, then the cleric, than a different goblin, then the rogue, then a bugbear, etc. Repeat until all players/monsters have shot. If the monsters outnumber the players, than they get to double up on activations sometimes. Having to constantly react to monster actions force players to stay focused as they can not rely on their own activation supremacy. Again, individual turns are not faster but players are more engaged with the action.
I feel this depends highly on the "feel" of any given combat. Two highly tactical groups may take regular group-turns. A mob of unintelligent monsters may get random turn orders every round while the players get to keep theirs. A more fluid battle may see everyone rerolling their initiative each turn. I don't think there's a good solution that necessarily always makes the game faster at least, and it depends on the players. Tactical, coordinated players may act faster when acting together. Non-tactical players may work better alone.

At the very least, I'd suggest keeping any and all of these options available as different combats may call for different approaches to appropriate set the tone and theme, and maintain engagement.

[Easy e]

I also like when the GM chooses if an attack hits or misses based on what works for the scene. However, this is the D&D 5e forum and that is a bridge too far for a lot of people.

As a corollary thought to the above, I have played where the player attacks, and if it hits then they are not attacked back. If they miss, they take damage or are hit by the target instead. Speeds things up a lot as the monster and player attack is resolved "simultaneously" with a single roll.

Great call for the folks who talked about Group Turns! Those also work great at speeding things up if the GM doesn't take forever to resolve enemy actions on a enemy-by-enemy action. If the GM takes too long, the players can all essentially leave the room during the GMs turn and return to reduce their HP and miss nothing.

Edit: I also like to re-roll Initiative every turn, as that keeps player engagement up. However, it does NOT speed up combat but does help keep it engaging as you may not always be the last or first to act. You have to keep up with who is in front of you and it is changing.

[False God]

I also like when the GM chooses if an attack hits or misses based on what works for the scene. However, this is the D&D 5e forum and that is a bridge too far for a lot of people.

As a corollary thought to the above, I have played where the player attacks, and if it hits then they are not attacked back. If they miss, they take damage or are hit by the target instead. Speeds things up a lot as the monster and player attack is resolved "simultaneously" with a single roll.

I can't say I've ever tried it, but having "microfights" where the active party and the responding party get to go at the same time seems an interesting way around normal turn-based gameplay oddities.

[Eldariel]

I can't say I've ever tried it, but having "microfights" where the active party and the responding party get to go at the same time seems an interesting way around normal turn-based gameplay oddities.

I always run simultaneous Initiative. Works like a charm: constant engagement from all players and makes all sorts of nonsense in the rules go away.

[Albert]

I feel your pain in a huge way. We have guy who plays a fighter and literally takes 15 minutes MINIMUM to finish his turn. Mind you, this is a 3 year long campaign and this guy somehow cannot figure out how to action surge, use his feat, use a bonus action, use superiority dice, or properly use any of his numerous magic items. Worse, he suffers from crippling analysis paralysis and will excruciatingly verbalize each possible move before he does anything. He’s a great dude IRL and tries his best, but my god does the game slow to a grind.

[OACSNY97]

I always run simultaneous Initiative. Works like a charm: constant engagement from all players and makes all sorts of nonsense in the rules go away.
How does simultaneous Initiative work?
I’ve mostly (exclusively?) played with individual initiative and have heard about side initiative, but I’ve never heard of simultaneous.

[Segev]

How does simultaneous Initiative work?
I’ve mostly (exclusively?) played with individual initiative and have heard about side initiative, but I’ve never heard of simultaneous.

Side Initiative is a version of it. Basically, anybody on the same side whose initiative is adjacent to an ally's acts on the same turn, rather than having discrete turns. So, in side initiative, everyone on the PC side acts on the same turn, allowing them to mix and match action, bonus action, movement, etc., without worrying about who goes "First" or "Last," or the start or end of turn getting in the way of who can do what. If two PCs want to move next to the dragon, then both attack, they can both do so, without having one of them have to move up and attack and THEN the other do it. It's very like how monsters of the same type that share an initiative score are played by the DM.

In a more traditionally-rolled initiative, if your turn order looks like this:

PC Barbarian
Goblins
PC Rogue
PC Fighter
Orcs
PC Cleric
PC Wizard

...then the Barbarian, Cleric, and Wizard all act on the same turn (except in the start of the first round, where the Barbarian acts alone), and the Rogue and Fighter act on the same turn. Just like all the goblins act on the same turn and all the orcs act on the same turn.

Incidentally, it would generally behoove you to also ignore rules for minions that say they act "immediately after" the turn of their master; have them also act on the same turn as their master, just as you would a fellow PC acting on the "next" initiative.

[Easy e]

Not sure I mentioned it early, but one thing I also do that helps keep engagement up; but probably slows combat down; it I make folks re-roll initiative each turn.

This changes up the dynamics of the combat every 6 second turn. Again, it slows down the game a bit but forces higher engagement because "who went before you" keeps changing and you have to adjust to the changes. Keeps combat from getting stale as they need to think of new combos and power stunts based on the new turn order.

[Tanarii]

There's also Declare initiative (usually a variant of side but can be individual) where you declare actions at the top of the round, then resolve. But it doesn't really work as cyclic rounds, so you have to make some adjustments to durations.

And historically there was BECMI side initiative, where each side does Morale, Movement, Missile, Magic and Hand-to-Hand in order. I remember it also being declare then resolve, but the Rules Cyclopedia for BECMI doesn't specify that.