Hi all I'd like some opinions about how this situation could be handled better in the future, the session ended early with players being frustrated about the outcome of the situation.

The players had their own unarmed cutter and an allied carvaral with 2 front mounted cannons, they attempted to approach an enemy frigate (front mounted and broadside cannons) whom was in an area of rough magical swell during the broad daylight. They were spotted and warning shots issued. So they decided to approach at night, passed stealth checks and got close enough to infiltrate. They were spotted due to careless errors and fled to their own ship. As they were in the narrative action of escaping, ie jumping off the ship into the water they were fired upon by 3-4 crew members. They then continued to talk with their party on board their own ship about the options they had. Is it reasonable to fire again at them as they are standing in the open in a hostile situation talking for extended period of time? They made no effort to say I shoot back or to say we're going to try and escape on the faster vessel, they simply wanted to disable the rudder and fight the ensuing battle from their ship despite hem being undergunned.

Is it unreasonable as a dm to be firing upon them once due to their inaction? Once initiative was rolled, the theatre of the mind battle fell apart due to players arguing about opportunity attacks, positioning and unfairness of being fired upon pre-combat.

Sorry for the long post, just as a newish DM it's the first time I've encountered a situation where the session had been stopped due to players simply not "having fun" anymore.

Thanks!

I think if you believe that time matters and that they can't just keep arguing without taking incoming fire, you should put a clock on them. Start a stop watch or a 3 minute timer or something and say, 'You have until this runs out and they will fire again.' This way they know they're 'on the clock.' 

Otherwise, most "non combat" D&D is not done on a timer and players often have an unlimited amount of time to talk, plan, etc. If they don't, as a DM, I warn them that they don't, and make sure they are aware of it. And if necessary, I start a timer.

I know it’s controversial, but mid combat or “action sequence” I try to operate close to real time aside from clarification or mechanics discussions. I always have the world move on. Putting substantial time pressure on the party creates a real difference to the decisions made mid combat and differentiates it from the more detailed planning that can be done before combat begins. It embraces the chaos of combat.  Every group I’ve done this with seems to like it and it really moves combat along. It makes for some awesome scenes when the players do this detailed planning and then things go to hell mid combat, but they can’t restrategize. They have to communicate their intentions to each other in just what they can communicate in a few seconds. When I say “what do you want to do” to a player they better respond quickly. If they are bickering, planning, or doing nothing, that’s their action. I don’t strictly limit their crosstalk to their turn as it’s all really happening at the same time, but I do limit the quantity of their communication. 

Ive tried giving a narrative warning. Say they are planning an attack on a camp and are only a few meters from it. If they are taking too long say that one of the sentries is walking in their direction. So they still have time to do their plan if they just make a choice... 

I still believe a "narrative warning" is not sufficient. If you, as a DM, are going to put a real, or "in your head," clock on them, thus giving the players only so much real time before the next thing happens, then the players should be told this, unless it is common practice for them to have the clock on them all the time. Ordinarily, players do not operate "on the clock" and have time to do things like look up a spell in the PHB, chat with each other about who is going to do what, rifle through their inventory on their character sheet, and so forth. That is standard "playing D&D" operation. If you are going to change that standard operation so that every real-world second counts, and you are going to take it that the 10 seconds they took to look at their character sheet is going to give an enemy time to maneuver or attack, then the players need to know that. 

Any time you change the "SOP" (standard operating procedures") at the table, players should be informed of this. Otherwise, it's not really fair. It'd be like playing a game of chess and you arbitrarily deciding that now the Knight moves on diagonals like the bishop, but you didn't tell the other player.

I think the problem here is that the players felt that time was effectively paused. Making it clear that time is moving on, say, by pointing out that the other ship is clearly preparing something, will give a sense of urgency.  

And always remember, this is a game. If they're having fun talking it out.... let them talk it out. Let them finish their conversation, but when they get ready to execute their plan, then show the other ship has their own plan they're ready to execute. Interrupting can be a fun ruiner, but a good challenge with a prepared enemy is just as a fun challenge.

Quote from Stoky >>

As they were in the narrative action of escaping, ie jumping off the ship into the water they were fired upon by 3-4 crew members. They then continued to talk with their party on board their own ship about the options they had. Is it reasonable to fire again at them as they are standing in the open in a hostile situation talking for extended period of time? They made no effort to say I shoot back or to say we're going to try and escape on the faster vessel, they simply wanted to disable the rudder and fight the ensuing battle from their ship despite hem being undergunned. 

Sounds like combat had already started. Once the party was fired upon, you should have rolled initiative and kept firing at them. Once the fight starts, its too late to discuss options other than fight or run away.

Common the theme here is definitely to make the players aware of what is happening. You don’t want to spring time pressure on them after the fact. Narrative hints are definitely useful for this. 

The problem here is a disconnect between the DM reckoning passage of time and the players. If combat has started, events are happening, then the DM should have everyone roll initiative so that the players KNOW that things are happening even in theatre of the mind.

As the DM, you had some picture of the characters leisurely returning to their vessel and having a long drawn out discussion of what to do. Should we try to disable the vessel? Should we retreat or should we attack? "What is your opinion Fred? How about you Wilma, what do you think?"

On the other hand, the players could have been picturing a rushed discussion trying to decide what they should do.

If the DM and players aren't thinking the same things then theater of the mind breaks down and you get conflict. The DM needs to be exceeding explicit regarding exactly how the scene is playing out. They need to make the players aware that time is passing and if there will be consequences to that passage of time. That is the DMs job. The DM can't suddenly turn around, impose an attack and tell the characters that they were standing around taking too much time BECAUSE in their theatre of the mind that is NOT what was happening. Conversation is allowed even in combat, maybe only a few sentences. However, it is up to the DM to impose that sense of urgency in these situations since everyone comes up with their own individual time scale and pictures the situation differently. There are lots of phrases and descriptions the DM could use and they need to make sure that the players hear them ... after that consequences are due to player actions ... before that though, if the DM imposes consequences without at least strongly foreshadowing the events to come if the players don't hurry up then you end up with the players quite justifiably feeling that the DM is being unfair (the DM imposed their version of the reality without making sure the players were on the same page).

That’s an excellent way to express it @David42

This has sort of come up in my games and I wonder who is driving the clock.  Is it that the DM doesn't enjoy letting the players argue/discuss for long periods so he just ends the discussion with a blast of a cannon, or is there an overall urgency with the party that combat lasts too long in our sessions?

When we 'pause' to discuss options we are OOC and we discuss it as polite members of a team.  This naturally takes longer to decide what to do.  But if the DM expects the discussion to be always IC, then that could be where the problem is.  Both sides need to decide how this will be done, with the DM getting the final vote.

This particular encounter is doubly problematic because there can be only one captain on a ship.  He needs to decide if he wants the ship to stay and fight or if it is time to skeedaddle.  If the party all thinks they can put this to a vote, then you don't understand sea action at all.  There comes a point when you are fully committed to the fight.  Can you change your mind and run away?  Well, you can try.  But you have a high probability of getting sunk or boarded anyway.

Thanks everyone for the replies, especially @david42 some good pointers there. I think where I've gone wrong with the way I Dmed it was not providing them with sufficient foreshadowing and warning that if they were to continue their discussion I would fire again. A simple line such as "they continue to reload their muskets" could have been included along with a timer that the players are aware of. Not just myself.

And in regards to the theatre of mind I think I need to be more explicit with how I see things such as combat positioning and communicate it to them whilst allowing them to explain what they think is happening. Because there have been a few situation in the past where I've described the consequences or foreshadowed what an action would result in. Such as jumping off a 100ft high mast into rough seas would potentially result in bludgeoning damage if you roll acrobatics/athletics poorly and the player can adjust his action because he thought he would be able to simply jump with 0 ramifications. 

Some good tips here. Thank you all for your contributions I'll be trying again tonight and seeing what the results are. 

As a rule of thumb, talking at the table is very different than character discussion. At the same time, table talk is used in place of in character discussion, and so it's fair to say that decisions have to be reached quickly. If it's a matter of two minutes on a basic plan, that would be one thing, but if you find your party is constantly taking fifteen minutes for basic decisions, as a DM you do have the responsibility to set pace for your adventures. Things happening because your players are taking a long time to make decisions is fair, though I would make sure, especially if newer players are involved, to telegraph that the consequences of delaying are about to happen.

A way that I've often done this, and granted this is somewhat situational, is to give an expected timeline with enough ambiguity that if it looks like your party is making progress you can delay- I don't like giving, say, 30 seconds as a warning because I don't want to be held to that if it looks like something is about to happen and it would interrupt at the last second. (In the example above: "As you talk among yourselves, you hear a shout from the frigate: "Ready the guns! Prepare to send these scallywags to the bottom of the sea!" You expect that you don't have much time before the frigate opens fire on your vessel.") Then, I would usually do a moment that has narrative danger but little actual damage. In the example above: "As you continue your deliberations, the frigate opens fire. Most of the cannon balls slip into the dark sea or barely graze the deck, but the frigate's gunners are already sighting their cannons for another broadside." Then, if the party cannot make a decision in a similar amount of time to the time since the initial warning, a consequence that doesn't kill the party but very clearly does damage happens. In the example above: "The frigate's second broadside tears through the ship's deck, and you begin to take on water. You need to make a decision quickly, or the next broadside may send your ship to the depths." You could also do damage to the party, or anything else that the environment of your encounter allows, if you want to.

I want to stress that this shouldn't be a tool for regular pacing. If your party doesn't have any looming or imminent threat, you shouldn't just magically do damage because they're being slow. There's also no reason why you can't allow your party to have more time if you want them to (especially if they're newer and just need more time to make decisions). Ultimately, you want to have a relationship with your players where your decisions as a DM are transparent. You're doing these things not to punish them, but because it's important for the world to have consequences, and having unlimited pause buttons detracts from both experience at the table (when people have to wait for other people to make decisions) and from the intensity of tense situations (because if you can take two hours to solve a puzzle with an in universe timer of a minute, you don't really have any risk, though in universe time and table time can be quite different). As a DM, I try to consider how my players would best enjoy it- I think it's important, for example, to recognize that my players are probably wanting to get this over with too and not trying to stall for no reason. That said, players are not always right, so even though my goal is to make my players have a good time with the session, I also want to make sure that the world is engaging and meaningful and sometimes that means having to make decisions that my players don't initially like if it's important to provide challenge or engagement.

A key is definitely recognizing character time vs player time (sorry if my previous post wasn’t explicit enough about that).

Looking up spells, jokes, bathroom breaks, clarification, mechanics are all player time. Discussing strategy, in-character chatting, and pondering options are typically considered character time at our table. Sometimes there is time for that and sometimes there isn’t. The tension and suboptimal decisions created by this (maybe no time to poll the whole room to see if everyone is ok if I ...) adds a considerable amount of texture. It’s one more tool to elevate encounters beyond being a Descent-like board game (no disrespect - “crunchy board game” is a fun way to play, too)  

These are things that have to be discussed with everyone at the table. How to deal with time constraints like this. I can only say how its done at my table. We came to the agreement beforehand that time moves normally. So if you're being shot at, or they're in regular combat, you don't have time for elaborate tactical discussions. There is no time to discuss who does which skill and set up a combo with another player character. They can say 1 sentence at most.

Deep tactical discussions happen out of combat. They can create strategies and combo's among themselves. Discuss how to handle situations should they arise.
When said situations is happening. Then they have to act instead of discuss. a Round takes 6 seconds... How much can you say in 6 seconds while also deciding on what action to take and executing it all at the same time?

In the example of OP. The PC's were caught while trying to infiltrate. They were in a tense situation of trying to get away and regroup. Enemies are not going to stop firing so they can have a nice cup of tea and biscuits on the deck of their ship. The situation is tense. Keep the pressure on them until they get out of it. Playing with these tense and chaotic emotions is also part of the story telling and keeping people immersed. Having them deal, impulsively even, with the situation that has arisen.

As for "narrative explanation". It is quite normal that when PC's are having talks near the entrance of a lair, or some such... That the DM will alter the scene a bit. Having guards change with others due to shift ending. Have a patrol move by. Keep the world breathing and alive. Showing the players that it can be both a positive and a negative to linger and laze about. Sometimes it is good for them to decide to hide and come back later. Other times introducing new elements will create an opportunity for them to jump onto...etc its all legit tools to use as DM.

New players can indeed take more time. However if they're not improving, even with help and other means... Just put a timer on the table. I use an hourglass that is 1minute. Does it take longer... well then your turn is forfeit and you take a defend action. I tell that player to keep thinking so the next round they do have something to do.

Theater of the mind can be tricky. Everyone needs to be clear as to what they are doing and even so confusion can be a constant issue. I no longer run this type of combat due to this. Back when I was playing AD&D and even 3.0/3.5 it was normal for a lot of groups to run games that way. Times have changed and a whole new, and very much different crowd has started to play D&D. Visual references just about seems to be the norm at this point when it comes to combat. As far as you firing upon them while they were still technically engaged. I see nothing wrong with it. Even if they were not still in combat it would seem that the opposing side was still looking for them. Make a few checks, even have them make a few checks then move on based on the results. I personally feel that this type of play requires more skill checks and whatnot. As far as any confusion with positioning... Thats going to happen a fair amount with this type of play style. Work with the players and even rule in their favor unless circumstances would not allow. I had recently went this style of play with my group in hopes that they would map out the dungeon that they were in. It was a mess and they did express their frustrations. One real issue with theater of the mine is that not everyone thinks the same and giving a description of the setting/scene is not going to be taken the same across the table. This is often time where the issues occur and most of the time its during action/combat where positioning is critical.