90% of the time it’s player speed. As a dm we often run 4-10 creatures at a time. Some with varying abilities and bonuses. And often we are done before some players who have a single turn.
it’s a combination of indecision, not paying attention, not knowing your character, and some other factors. Even when you have a metric tonne of stuff at like 20th level it doesn’t take that long to do a thing. A wizard casts a spell. Maybe a bonus action. Sure maybe they need to do some maths to add up dice but provided they thought about their turn beforehand it’s just a matter of picking a spell and a target.
I want to push back on this a bit as it speaks to what I often see as an oversight in DMs frustrations with what the DM perceives as player deficits. DM has to realize they have a massive orientation advantage in the game over the PCs exploration of the game. The players are literally set up by the DM, of course the DM is going to roll and role like they own the place, they do. DM is also less risk averse because they're not playing player characters.
Yes, I believe a lot of players could better study the action economy ... I also think a lot of DMs and peer players could be better tutors.
I feel good DMs meet the players "where they are" and build up to the game they all want to play from there. You recognize that, and you play on an adaptation of the "slow is smooth, smooth is fast" mindset. Baby step early combats giving players time to recognize what they're doing and let it sink in through repetition, tempo builds up as the the understanding smooths out. I mean, it's how IRL combat is taught in professions where combat is a real thing.
DMs are the "master" of the game and there's a certain degree of authority that goes with that, a great DM IMHO makes the effort to not simply owning that mastery but sharing it out as an MC, so to speak.
I agree that using the comparison of DM to player isn't apples to oranges.
The DM often isn't even trying to survive the encounter. This makes all the difference in the world. Also, in most cases the DM deliberately overmatches their team sending them in to be doomed. And we are totally familiar with the scenario, so we've prepped all our options.
I just hear the complaint that Combat Takes Too Long and so I wanted to see what I might do to fix it, but those things are on the DM side of the screen. If the problem is on the other side of the screen, well fixing that challenge is beyond my skill set.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Because second longest part is the RP, and that’s really the only other part of the game. (Judging by the rules and how useless everyone says Rangers are, it’s fairly obvious that the Exploration part apparently gets skipped at most tables.)
Anything that is Required For The Plot to Progress is something the DM will make sure succeeds. As such, exploration skills are only usable for side stories and true sandbox games (which are rare).
Lots of blaming players but considering the number of decision points a character can have - decisions that can be affected by any preceeding turn - and the nature of spell effects to dramatically slow down combat, it's the system, too.
Consider a cleric concentrating on spirit guardians and having sanctuary on themself now that they have made themselves a priority target. Every monster within 15' or that enters within needs to roll a wisdom saving throw, and then the cleric rolls damage. Then if the monsters want to attack the cleric, another saving throw for each attack. Also more time the DM needs to decide if the monsters will enter the SG AoE and if they will try attacking the cleric once, twice, etc. If the cleric looses concentration between turns, they are going to have a lot different options to consider than if they maintain it. It's easy to have a plan a (if I maintain concentration) and a plan B (if I lose concentration) but what if an ally drops unconscious, or most of the enemies retreat and draw ranged weapons but the cleric's position is still crucial to flank a difficult enemy that stayed in melee range, and so on, it gets difficult to have six+ contingency plans and ultimately this kind of stuff has dragged out combat and resulted in me having several perfectly good turns planned out and several fallback/standard "macros" all go to pot with me replanning my turn right as I was up.
Consider a half-orc champion stacking all the feats that allow you to reroll damage. Rolling crit damage, rerolling 1's and 2's, rerolling all damage, rerolling some damage, gaining an extra attack on a kill, and getting a bonus attack, it can get a little out of hand despite the rules limiting rerolls of the same roll because you still have multiple attacks.
Opportunity attacks are a key example of slowing down the combat - you literally are interrupted in the middle of your turn.
All the extra dice from bardic inspiration or paladin aura or bane or bless, all the decision points like spending ki points on every attack or not, all get wrapped up in the role playing layer and the relative inability to preprogram the mechanical decisions because of unpredictable battlefields.
90% of the time it’s player speed. As a dm we often run 4-10 creatures at a time. Some with varying abilities and bonuses. And often we are done before some players who have a single turn.
it’s a combination of indecision, not paying attention, not knowing your character, and some other factors. Even when you have a metric tonne of stuff at like 20th level it doesn’t take that long to do a thing. A wizard casts a spell. Maybe a bonus action. Sure maybe they need to do some maths to add up dice but provided they thought about their turn beforehand it’s just a matter of picking a spell and a target.
I want to push back on this a bit as it speaks to what I often see as an oversight in DMs frustrations with what the DM perceives as player deficits. DM has to realize they have a massive orientation advantage in the game over the PCs exploration of the game. The players are literally set up by the DM, of course the DM is going to roll and role like they own the place, they do. DM is also less risk averse because they're not playing player characters.
Yes, I believe a lot of players could better study the action economy ... I also think a lot of DMs and peer players could be better tutors.
I feel good DMs meet the players "where they are" and build up to the game they all want to play from there. You recognize that, and you play on an adaptation of the "slow is smooth, smooth is fast" mindset. Baby step early combats giving players time to recognize what they're doing and let it sink in through repetition, tempo builds up as the the understanding smooths out. I mean, it's how IRL combat is taught in professions where combat is a real thing.
DMs are the "master" of the game and there's a certain degree of authority that goes with that, a great DM IMHO makes the effort to not simply owning that mastery but sharing it out as an MC, so to speak.
Oh that’s all very fair. Dms absolutey have a few edges. But they also have down sides too. Larger amounts of management. Rulings. Planning what knock on effects are. Prepping advanced sections.
and to be clear players who need a bit more time on their turns are NOT a problem. Especially new players. My main problem are those who tune out when it isn’t their turn and ignore the game. I have had so many players just tune in when their name is called and they move into a hazard literally mentioned 10 seconds prior and point at the dm and say “that wasn’t clear” and then require recaps.
but for the sake of fairness there is plenty a dm and players can do to both be faster if that’s the style of game people want.
and absolutely meeting players where they are is the way to go. If they enjoy a slower game. Take it and run with it. The only conflict is when people wanting faster combat meet those that want a slower experience.
90% of the time it’s player speed. As a dm we often run 4-10 creatures at a time. Some with varying abilities and bonuses. And often we are done before some players who have a single turn.
it’s a combination of indecision, not paying attention, not knowing your character, and some other factors. Even when you have a metric tonne of stuff at like 20th level it doesn’t take that long to do a thing. A wizard casts a spell. Maybe a bonus action. Sure maybe they need to do some maths to add up dice but provided they thought about their turn beforehand it’s just a matter of picking a spell and a target.
I want to push back on this a bit as it speaks to what I often see as an oversight in DMs frustrations with what the DM perceives as player deficits. DM has to realize they have a massive orientation advantage in the game over the PCs exploration of the game. The players are literally set up by the DM, of course the DM is going to roll and role like they own the place, they do. DM is also less risk averse because they're not playing player characters.
Yes, I believe a lot of players could better study the action economy ... I also think a lot of DMs and peer players could be better tutors.
I feel good DMs meet the players "where they are" and build up to the game they all want to play from there. You recognize that, and you play on an adaptation of the "slow is smooth, smooth is fast" mindset. Baby step early combats giving players time to recognize what they're doing and let it sink in through repetition, tempo builds up as the the understanding smooths out. I mean, it's how IRL combat is taught in professions where combat is a real thing.
DMs are the "master" of the game and there's a certain degree of authority that goes with that, a great DM IMHO makes the effort to not simply owning that mastery but sharing it out as an MC, so to speak.
Oh that’s all very fair. Dms absolutey have a few edges. But they also have down sides too. Larger amounts of management. Rulings. Planning what knock on effects are. Prepping advanced sections.
and to be clear players who need a bit more time on their turns are NOT a problem. Especially new players. My main problem are those who tune out when it isn’t their turn and ignore the game. I have had so many players just tune in when their name is called and they move into a hazard literally mentioned 10 seconds prior and point at the dm and say “that wasn’t clear” and then require recaps.
but for the sake of fairness there is plenty a dm and players can do to both be faster if that’s the style of game people want.
and absolutely meeting players where they are is the way to go. If they enjoy a slower game. Take it and run with it. The only conflict is when people wanting faster combat meet those that want a slower experience.
I agree with most of what you said, just not with the conclusion. I've been at tables as a DM and as a player were there are players whose inattention or ignorance of their character/player class cause major bottlenecks, and I don't mean new players. And this has nothing to do with wanting a slower of faster combat. I've found as a DM that using a laptop and putting my encounters here in the encounter/combat tracker on dndb makes the DM side much, much more streamlined and faster.
My main problem are those who tune out when it isn’t their turn and ignore the game. I have had so many players just tune in when their name is called and they move into a hazard literally mentioned 10 seconds prior and point at the dm and say “that wasn’t clear” and then require recaps.
Yep, me too. These are questions that kill my enthusiasm as well as killing any possibility of two combats in one session.
"Which bugbear is most injured?" Sheesh, we just covered that in the previous player''s turn. Weren't you listening?
'What spell did the EBG just cast?" It happened two turns ago? Why weren't you paying attention?
"Whats the red line on the map?" That's your party member's wall of fire, which you'd know if you had been paying attention.
"*To the rest of the group* Who is most wounded?" Well, if you'd been paying attention you would have noticed that the fighter just got smacked by two ogres and is now in single digit HP.
"Why is the bard's figure lying on the ground?" That would be because the enemy orc just knocked them prone?
ARRGHGHGLGLGGHTRRLTLFHS:DGJ!
The way I'm dealing with it now is to be, frankly, a bit mean. At the start of every turn (not round, turn) I summarise the battleground, mention by name the current character and the next character, and tell the player "Go".
GM: Three beastmen, one badly injured, around Bombaata who is low on health. Six archers with good cover. Mako's blessing spell is still up. Conan's turn now, Zula's next. Conan, go!
If the player wants more information, especially information that they'd know if they'd been listening, I'm now requiring the Perceive/Investigate Action. One player got grumpy so I got grumpy right back because I was sick of repeating myself.
Summarizing the situation from the character's perspective whose turn it is -- that's not mean, that's the ideal way to do it. (Maybe it's mean to require actions to uncover additional information, idk. Probably. But if it works, it works.)
Summarizing the situation from the character's perspective whose turn it is -- that's not mean, that's the ideal way to do it. (Maybe it's mean to require actions to uncover additional information, idk. Probably. But if it works, it works.)
There's two sides of the coin.
It's not the DMs job to give an active summary every single turn. It's just not. At the top of the round combat-wise, sure, I think it would be nice.
Requiring actions to uncover additional information isn't mean, it's RAW. It's the Search action.
This topic is always contentious because, in the end, it's always the same thing. We want our players to be invested, but at the same time, we're not doing the things at the table to keep them invested.
Set ground rules for your table on what combat is. Follow those ground rules. REWARD your players for following those ground rules with inspiration or by having the enemy undergo some form of analysis paralysis. When the table gets out of hand, call it back to attention. Don't impose negatives unless it gets REALLY out of hand because at the end D&D is supposed to be fun. The minute it seems like someone is out to get you is the minute your table cohesion falls apart.
Flipside as a player, if you see your table doing these things it's not out of bounds for you as a player to call out to your fellow players and help move it along. Every table has someone who always takes forever in combat, but no one sits with that person before it's their turn to help. Only when it's their turn and now EVERYONE speaks up. This goes back to rules on what combat is. It's ok to allow discussion on what rules are or how mechanics work, but unless its specifically noted its a new player and they might need some help? Let them figure that shit out. Even if it takes longer. When they make a good play? Celebrate it. When they make a bad play? Celebrate the ATTEMPT at being good. Talk with that person between sessions to ask why they made X and Y move. Get them invested.
Too much negative reinforcement in this thread. Not nearly enough positive.
When players are trying to figure out the exact right thing to do, you can point out that a round is six seconds and their PCs probably aren't going to be making optimal decisions either. It's worth comparing RPG decision making with the decision making you do in a computer game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree that using the comparison of DM to player isn't apples to oranges.
The DM often isn't even trying to survive the encounter. This makes all the difference in the world. Also, in most cases the DM deliberately overmatches their team sending them in to be doomed. And we are totally familiar with the scenario, so we've prepped all our options.
I just hear the complaint that Combat Takes Too Long and so I wanted to see what I might do to fix it, but those things are on the DM side of the screen. If the problem is on the other side of the screen, well fixing that challenge is beyond my skill set.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Anything that is Required For The Plot to Progress is something the DM will make sure succeeds. As such, exploration skills are only usable for side stories and true sandbox games (which are rare).
Lots of blaming players but considering the number of decision points a character can have - decisions that can be affected by any preceeding turn - and the nature of spell effects to dramatically slow down combat, it's the system, too.
Consider a cleric concentrating on spirit guardians and having sanctuary on themself now that they have made themselves a priority target. Every monster within 15' or that enters within needs to roll a wisdom saving throw, and then the cleric rolls damage. Then if the monsters want to attack the cleric, another saving throw for each attack. Also more time the DM needs to decide if the monsters will enter the SG AoE and if they will try attacking the cleric once, twice, etc. If the cleric looses concentration between turns, they are going to have a lot different options to consider than if they maintain it. It's easy to have a plan a (if I maintain concentration) and a plan B (if I lose concentration) but what if an ally drops unconscious, or most of the enemies retreat and draw ranged weapons but the cleric's position is still crucial to flank a difficult enemy that stayed in melee range, and so on, it gets difficult to have six+ contingency plans and ultimately this kind of stuff has dragged out combat and resulted in me having several perfectly good turns planned out and several fallback/standard "macros" all go to pot with me replanning my turn right as I was up.
Consider a half-orc champion stacking all the feats that allow you to reroll damage. Rolling crit damage, rerolling 1's and 2's, rerolling all damage, rerolling some damage, gaining an extra attack on a kill, and getting a bonus attack, it can get a little out of hand despite the rules limiting rerolls of the same roll because you still have multiple attacks.
Opportunity attacks are a key example of slowing down the combat - you literally are interrupted in the middle of your turn.
All the extra dice from bardic inspiration or paladin aura or bane or bless, all the decision points like spending ki points on every attack or not, all get wrapped up in the role playing layer and the relative inability to preprogram the mechanical decisions because of unpredictable battlefields.
Oh that’s all very fair. Dms absolutey have a few edges. But they also have down sides too. Larger amounts of management. Rulings. Planning what knock on effects are. Prepping advanced sections.
and to be clear players who need a bit more time on their turns are NOT a problem. Especially new players. My main problem are those who tune out when it isn’t their turn and ignore the game. I have had so many players just tune in when their name is called and they move into a hazard literally mentioned 10 seconds prior and point at the dm and say “that wasn’t clear” and then require recaps.
but for the sake of fairness there is plenty a dm and players can do to both be faster if that’s the style of game people want.
and absolutely meeting players where they are is the way to go. If they enjoy a slower game. Take it and run with it. The only conflict is when people wanting faster combat meet those that want a slower experience.
I agree with most of what you said, just not with the conclusion. I've been at tables as a DM and as a player were there are players whose inattention or ignorance of their character/player class cause major bottlenecks, and I don't mean new players. And this has nothing to do with wanting a slower of faster combat. I've found as a DM that using a laptop and putting my encounters here in the encounter/combat tracker on dndb makes the DM side much, much more streamlined and faster.
For our game the problem is NPCs. Currently our party has 4 players and each has 1 NPC following them. This doubles the time to play.
As for other 'addons', such as familiars, pets, mounts, they should go on their owner's turn and should never have multiple non-move options.
Yep, me too. These are questions that kill my enthusiasm as well as killing any possibility of two combats in one session.
"Which bugbear is most injured?" Sheesh, we just covered that in the previous player''s turn. Weren't you listening?
'What spell did the EBG just cast?" It happened two turns ago? Why weren't you paying attention?
"Whats the red line on the map?" That's your party member's wall of fire, which you'd know if you had been paying attention.
"*To the rest of the group* Who is most wounded?" Well, if you'd been paying attention you would have noticed that the fighter just got smacked by two ogres and is now in single digit HP.
"Why is the bard's figure lying on the ground?" That would be because the enemy orc just knocked them prone?
ARRGHGHGLGLGGHTRRLTLFHS:DGJ!
The way I'm dealing with it now is to be, frankly, a bit mean. At the start of every turn (not round, turn) I summarise the battleground, mention by name the current character and the next character, and tell the player "Go".
GM: Three beastmen, one badly injured, around Bombaata who is low on health. Six archers with good cover. Mako's blessing spell is still up. Conan's turn now, Zula's next. Conan, go!
If the player wants more information, especially information that they'd know if they'd been listening, I'm now requiring the Perceive/Investigate Action. One player got grumpy so I got grumpy right back because I was sick of repeating myself.
In attention is the RESULT of a slow game, not the cause. Yeah, it makes it worse, but in a quick paced game that should not happen.
Summarizing the situation from the character's perspective whose turn it is -- that's not mean, that's the ideal way to do it. (Maybe it's mean to require actions to uncover additional information, idk. Probably. But if it works, it works.)
There's two sides of the coin.
It's not the DMs job to give an active summary every single turn. It's just not. At the top of the round combat-wise, sure, I think it would be nice.
Requiring actions to uncover additional information isn't mean, it's RAW. It's the Search action.
This topic is always contentious because, in the end, it's always the same thing. We want our players to be invested, but at the same time, we're not doing the things at the table to keep them invested.
Set ground rules for your table on what combat is. Follow those ground rules. REWARD your players for following those ground rules with inspiration or by having the enemy undergo some form of analysis paralysis. When the table gets out of hand, call it back to attention. Don't impose negatives unless it gets REALLY out of hand because at the end D&D is supposed to be fun. The minute it seems like someone is out to get you is the minute your table cohesion falls apart.
Flipside as a player, if you see your table doing these things it's not out of bounds for you as a player to call out to your fellow players and help move it along. Every table has someone who always takes forever in combat, but no one sits with that person before it's their turn to help. Only when it's their turn and now EVERYONE speaks up. This goes back to rules on what combat is. It's ok to allow discussion on what rules are or how mechanics work, but unless its specifically noted its a new player and they might need some help? Let them figure that shit out. Even if it takes longer. When they make a good play? Celebrate it. When they make a bad play? Celebrate the ATTEMPT at being good. Talk with that person between sessions to ask why they made X and Y move. Get them invested.
Too much negative reinforcement in this thread. Not nearly enough positive.
I think it really depends on the table. Typically you'll have a mix of players of differing levels of expertise and engagement. Same for the DM.
With a typical small encounter with 1-4 creatures and 4 PCs, combat can go pretty quick, even if the players and DM aren't super experts.
Where I think it slows down a lot is a) when you have a ton of minions or b) more than 4 PCs or c) you've been playing for more than 4 hours.
A) would be mitigated if there were minions and henchmen rules (which there isn't really unless you count Swarms and Hordes);
B) the mitigation is asking players to read up the abilities beforehand, and focus up when you're in session;
C) the mitigation is taking a break, oe calling it and picking up next time. Easier online. Harder in person.
When players are trying to figure out the exact right thing to do, you can point out that a round is six seconds and their PCs probably aren't going to be making optimal decisions either. It's worth comparing RPG decision making with the decision making you do in a computer game.