Are you describing the action to them with passion and gusto? If you aren't into it why should they be?
This is good advice. The DM can look other players in the eye when describing the results of actions. If the attack misses, the arrow can "fly past Wizzy the Wizard's head, narrowly missing!" Then, "The orc responds by pointing a green finger at the ranger, saying, 'You're next, elf!' The orc then turns his attention back to Wizzy and..."
Arcadia magazine, issue 13, by MCDM has a really good article about Group Maneuevers. This allows PCs to use their reactions to set up each other in unique ways. Might be useful for you to give players more interesting options when it isn't there turn.
Outside of that, it depends on how long players are taking. If it's a fully reasonable amount of time, then maybe you just need to talk with the bored player and tell them that other players are attentive during their turn, and they owe it to the others to be their hype man/woman too.
Sometimes no amount of mechanics will fix the issue, and it comes down to player ettiquette.
Are you describing the action to them with passion and gusto? If you aren't into it why should they be?
This is good advice. The DM can look other players in the eye when describing the results of actions. If the attack misses, the arrow can "fly past Wizzy the Wizard's head, narrowly missing!" Then, "The orc responds by pointing a green finger at the ranger, saying, 'You're next, elf!' The orc then turns his attention back to Wizzy and..."
Again though, some players aren't in for that and if that's not the issue this only prolongs combat if they're more of a hack and slash beer and pretzels kind of group.
I'm not saying don't use descriptions at all- far from it- but it isn't the be all end all solution people are painting it to be. I know if every action taken in my games were described with passion and gusto my players would fall asleep. Sometimes a turn of actions is just you hit the orc and it doesn't need to be a thrilling moment.
Having some time to think if needed can require more than 6 seconds, upon occasion, but generally a choice should be reachable well before 30 seconds. Perhaps somewhere in between. Six seconds is cool because that was the original 1e "segment" time period that would now be a character's round, but sometimes a game isn't as fluid as real life. Maybe 6 seconds with a 30 second time out rule allowed once per each encounter per player (if needed to look something up or think hard on a riddle that an INT 18 character could figure out more easily than the real life Player). I understand the way kids grow up these days lends to their inability to have any sense of patience, but this is a game of learning, so why not also learn some patience and respect for fellow players around the table while we're at it. You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find, you get what you need. -Rolling Stones.
I'm not saying don't use descriptions at all- far from it- but it isn't the be all end all solution people are painting it to be. I know if every action taken in my games were described with passion and gusto my players would fall asleep. Sometimes a turn of actions is just you hit the orc and it doesn't need to be a thrilling moment.
Agreed. Sometimes the point is a glorious combat scene where the PCs valiantly turn the horde back. Sometimes the point is to prompt someone to ask what those orcs were doing in that valley anyway.
@OP I tend to emphasize opportunities for PCs to use reactions or readying actions in this situation. Holding a player accountable for what everyone else at the table witnessed helps too (sounds like, "The monster does what?! I would have used my reaction to AoO!" and me pointing out that I announced the monsters action twice while looking at you and everyone saw me do it, and everyone else nodding.)
I try to implement count downs of any duration in only the most incorrigible cases, as I find those types of limits are more of a restraint on me as a DM, as I usually have many more creatures to track than any PC does in any given combat.
Matt Coleville has this thing he calls "Orcs ATTACK!!" If the players take too long, things happen. If they aren't in combat, something comes along and now they are. If they are, but they are taking a long time, the beat goes on. Maybe they just freeze, like a deer in the headlights (even though they have the initiative) giving up their moment to a troubling inability to make a decision! OOPS. Perhaps allow them to use their action as dodge, etc....
Matt Coleville has this thing he calls "Orcs ATTACK!!" If the players take too long, things happen. If they aren't in combat, something comes along and now they are. If they are, but they are taking a long time, the beat goes on. Maybe they just freeze, like a deer in the headlights (even though they have the initiative) giving up their moment to a troubling inability to make a decision! OOPS. Perhaps allow them to use their action as dodge, etc....
I've tried these suggestions, with mixed success.
If a player asks me, "Wait, what just happened?" and they weren't paying attention then I would love to not tell them. What usually happens though is that two or three other players then tell them, wasting even more time.
I've tried giving players 30 seconds to give me an action (or lose the turn due to indecisiveness, the character does not move and takes the Defend action) , but we have at least one player who I'm pretty certain is completely unable to do that.
If it is the player's turn and they ask questions about the battlefield, then I do require the use of the Investigation Action. A question like "Which of the orcs is most wounded?" or "Has the enemy caster used their Reaction?" would have been answered if they were paying attention. At the start of each turn I give a really quick description of the battlefield (something like, "Four archers, one troll, troll is not very wounded, the bard is almost dead, wizard what do you do?"). If they want more details, they need to spend an action looking.
Now the mixed success I talked about before all comes from hurt feelings. While I'd love to be harsh (because by all thats good in the world, my group are SLOOOOOW at combats), I also don't want to hurt feelings. This is a hobby, after all.
You have to balance everything to the people at the table (and note that you, the GM, are also a person at the table - your feelings matter just as much as everyone else).
Matt Coleville has this thing he calls "Orcs ATTACK!!" If the players take too long, things happen. If they aren't in combat, something comes along and now they are. If they are, but they are taking a long time, the beat goes on. Maybe they just freeze, like a deer in the headlights (even though they have the initiative) giving up their moment to a troubling inability to make a decision! OOPS. Perhaps allow them to use their action as dodge, etc....
I've tried these suggestions, with mixed success.
If a player asks me, "Wait, what just happened?" and they weren't paying attention then I would love to not tell them. What usually happens though is that two or three other players then tell them, wasting even more time.
I've tried giving players 30 seconds to give me an action (or lose the turn due to indecisiveness, the character does not move and takes the Defend action) , but we have at least one player who I'm pretty certain is completely unable to do that.
If it is the player's turn and they ask questions about the battlefield, then I do require the use of the Investigation Action. A question like "Which of the orcs is most wounded?" or "Has the enemy caster used their Reaction?" would have been answered if they were paying attention. At the start of each turn I give a really quick description of the battlefield (something like, "Four archers, one troll, troll is not very wounded, the bard is almost dead, wizard what do you do?"). If they want more details, they need to spend an action looking.
Now the mixed success I talked about before all comes from hurt feelings. While I'd love to be harsh (because by all thats good in the world, my group are SLOOOOOW at combats), I also don't want to hurt feelings. This is a hobby, after all.
You have to balance everything to the people at the table (and note that you, the GM, are also a person at the table - your feelings matter just as much as everyone else).
.
Very much agree here. This doesn't just apply to new players but also more experienced players that may not fully understand how the DM tends to run combat. I think having those lower threat encounters earlier in a campaign can be a huge boon to players not only getting used to their characters but also their teammates as well. Thinking tactically about what your character does in a situation takes practice. Thinking tactically about what your character does in a situation in support of and relative to your teammates takes practice AND coordination. Compound all this with the fact that some classes are inherently more complex than others and that can lead to slower decision making. But, as with most things, it's a learning process.
This is a tricky part. Definitely, it's not about being crappy to anyone, but just getting people in the mode of thinking of their moves as other players are doing theirs and realizing while it's turn based on initiative, it's also like a real-time event. Having said that, people do need to have some patience and respect for their fellow party members/players. It's meant to be a learning environment, after all.
Honestly, this kind of stuff should be covered by Session 0.
I worry here that it's the group dynamic to blame in what's been described. It's not the DM, it's not the players, it's everyone who is letting each other down. There's been some great suggestions like ensuring that you and your players describe combat, even in a hack and slash setting that really does and should add to the session. I think too that giving the players a limited amount of time to act can help.
I find myself wondering about how you set up combat. Are you creating combat areas in which players can take advantage of tactical options. It sounds to me like battlemaps and some tactical litter would really add to the way the players engage with the combat. So, for example last night my party encountered for the first time a ruin. I knew that a dragon was incoming, but they did not. They simply saw a chest of gold and caught glimpse of a creature. They were on approach from the right to the left.
Now for combat the players have a lot of options in this ruin. There is cover aplenty to take advantage of, and I described the ruined towers as standing 60ft high with some walkways, stairs and balconies. The players in short had the ability to take advantage of cover, concealment, and height. On approach I had told them they could see a ruin but on approach there were bushes and trees that staggered the landscape. Their approach was to send in the eldest of their party to act like a senile old lady just out for a stroll to reminisce over what this building once was. It was her who first saw the guard drake guarding the ruins and the treasure. The rogue meanwhile scaled the ruined tower on the bottom right of the screen. In a battlefield like this the players, to my mind, should never get bored. They've always got something to be thinking about. In this map there is the approach. Then there's the treasure that they could get to. Then as if that wasn't enough and as they were just about to make their move on the guard drake which was headed toward the old lady of the party, a roar thunders through the sky and the rogue sees a dragon soaring through the sky towards them.
The rest of the party didn't hear me tell the rogue he saw a dragon...that was done with a discreet note. So what the rest of the party saw was the rogue quickly making his way down the tower and away from the battle...despite that massive pile of gold I'd thrown in the north west tower to entice them in.
And this really is the one piece of advice I haven't seen offered. Forget the mechanics of the game for a moment. How are you setting up your battlegrounds? Are you giving players the space and environments that lead to interesting battles? Are you giving them something which requires them to think and observe what their comrades are up to? Or have you given them yet another dungeon room that's pretty sparsely populated and barely described?
Hopefully, my description is of help here. And please do not think by any means that I'm suggesting I'm an expert in this. I'm not. I'm a DM like you who is trying to interpret what you're asking from my own experience. If you disagree that's cool.
I'm very considerate when it's not my turn. I watch what is happening and plan out my turn so when the DM announces I'm up I can rattle it off fairly quickly. People should not be dallying and taking up a full minute to decide what they want to do when it's their turn. In a 5 man party you've had 4 other PC turns and the DM's turn to decide on what you're going to do. People need to speed the f up and get it together.
And this really is the one piece of advice I haven't seen offered. Forget the mechanics of the game for a moment. How are you setting up your battlegrounds? Are you giving players the space and environments that lead to interesting battles? Are you giving them something which requires them to think and observe what their comrades are up to? Or have you given them yet another dungeon room that's pretty sparsely populated and barely described?
I agree with this. If you're going to do combat (or anything important like a jailbreak or social encounter), then add some flavor. If the party gets attacked by level 0.5 street urchins, then don't even roll dice. Handwave it. This keeps the (unimportant) minutae to a minimum and keeps things more exciting.
Even when I have all martial characters who don't get bogged down by spells, running with my 5 PC's always leads to the same thing: One or more players get bored and zone out in combat and have no idea what is going on when it's there turn.
Anyone have any tips on how to get players to stay engaged even when the Monk is punching 6 things on their turn? Any mechanics (homebrew or official) that I can use to motivate my players to pay attention?
This is simple: At the start of every turn, have all players decide - at the same time - what they want to do, roll the dice they need to roll, etc. They can briefly discuss how to avoid running into each others fireballs and so on, but otherwise everyone makes decisions and rolls in tandem.
On their turn, they only inform of results: I run to D7, and strike with my glaive for 14 points of damage (provided a 21 is enough to hit).
Bam! Combat is quick and fun, and no one has to wait while player X fiddles around with his spell list, trying to decide what to cast.
Very rarely a bit of postproduction editing needs to take place, but it's basically not even worth mentioning.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
each player has 30 sec to resolve their turn, use an eff timer stop watch etc.
30 seconds is well too long Gigaflop. In 30 seconds 5 players should have each had a turn. 60 seconds (one minute) should see each player have 2 turns and the whole encounter should last no more than five minutes of real world time.
Each player gets 6 seconds to act and that includes speaking, moving, attacking. During turns they should be preparing their next move/spell/attack/what they are going to say or anything that they need to do (check rules or whatever) and then on their turn, they get 6 seconds do act it out.
its entirely possible to say to an encounter lasted an hour or an hour and a half of in game time but no encounter, unless its a boss level encounter, should last longer than 5 minutes of real world time.
This is just the way I run my games, I know there is lots of other ways but I run community games with teens (typically fidgety or like talking over each other and get easily bored) and sticking to this method for combat encounters, I have been able to keep my players engaged and entertained.
Sorry this might work for you but is really bad advice, 6 seconds is the time in game a combat round it, out of game at the table players need to review the situation, spell casters need to think about what spell they want to cast, a player can make a plan and then have that thrown out the door within 2 rounds by what the players before them do, or what the monsters do. The cleric might have planned to cast an offensive spell but suddenly needs to think more tactically about who to revivify. There is checking on spell rules if the spell is not one they use all the time, thinking about positioning on the board. But also 6 seconds, if they have 2 attacks it takes more then 6 seconds to roll the dice, add up damage, decide on the bonus actions to be taken etc. Setting such a short time limit forces players to do the same things over and over and over and stop trying to get creative. "Can I cut the rope to that chandlier and ride it up to the balcony to attack the crossbowmen" Sure you can try lets work out the rolls you need for that.
I set my players a time limit of a minute and am a little flexible with that if the payer needs to confirm a ruling on a spell etc before they attempt it. In reality I would say in person most rounds players are within that minute, unless the rogue or paladin crit on a sneak attack/smite, and then there is all that math to do :)
Actually re readong back I think you have totally misinterpreted the rules here.
An encounter might be over in 2 minutes of game time, but in real time might take an hour or 2 to run. 2 minutes of game time is 20 turns of combat. A turn is 6 seconds, with all players and monsters acting almost simultaneously in that 6 seconds (with initiative order indicating who gets the slight millisecond jump) it is not 6 seconds of game time to represent something that takes hours in game.
I think the issue isn't/should not be/wasn't how long resolving the action, but more of just making the decision about what one will do in that round. However long it takes to resolve that action in real time (dice rolling, reading the spell, etc...) is a different issue. In addition, it is, of course, completely possible that a player may make a decision, read a spell and realize that doesn't work for the situation the way it was intended, so the player has to make a different decision. Hopefully this is the exception, rather than the rule. Most players can have a good idea of what they want to do while other players are taking their actions. The player could even read up on a spell or game rule while waiting, just to make sure. So, often times, the decision to change the chosen action can occur before it's the player's turn. Once again, I still think that players should show some patience and overcome the short attention spans they have learned from our daily lifestyles of 4 or 5G response times to everything. D&D the TTRPG is not meant to have a computer game paced action.
try to keep your players engaged by overdramaticizing the enemys reaction because if it get say blown up by fireball say things like as the fireball hits itsbody it erupts into flame and splitting its limbs into many pieces and make it gory if your players can tolerate it but simply keep them engaged by being dramatic
try to keep your players engaged by overdramaticizing the enemys reaction because if it get say blown up by fireball say things like as the fireball hits itsbody it erupts into flame and splitting its limbs into many pieces and make it gory if your players can tolerate it but simply keep them engaged by being dramatic
Yeah, that was suggested, but it was shot down because there seem to be other valid options. Thus, this one would never work.
I like it, though. What else would a DM want the players to pay attention to besides an interesting game in front of them? If players fall asleep or stack dice, it's possible they are not finding entertainment.
I would heartily disagree with the 6 second rule. Not everyone can think quickly and even martial classes may have a lot to think about. Battle Masters, for instance, need to be careful about the decisions on using their battle manouvres effectively to not waste them, time to assess the situation, study the layout and think of where they can move. The 24 seconds they have before it becomes their turn again (if there are 4 other players) is not enough time to do all this. And even if you know what you want to do, you don't have enough time to actually do much.
"I move around the enemy Klarg is fighting and try to -" DING 6 seconds done, and you've done nothing because you didn't even have time to state where you are going or why. But let's say you did, let's say you just moved your mini to a flank position and you have the optional rule of getting advantage and went "I attack". You're a high level fighter with 3 attacks. You would now have 4 seconds to roll 6 d20s adding modifiers, being told which hit or not, then to roll damage die, doing quick math in your head. Maybe you can achieve it. Great, but that is only if you are quick, using an easy weapon (only 1 die, no magic effects) and are not using any features like manouvres because you seriously do not have time to think about them or use them.
And you certainly don't have any time for description or to do anything that very short blunt statements "Attack Orc #2", "move there" and move mini, etc. You cannot describe your attacks, your thoughts, and the entire combat is now nothing but 5 players going "I attack".
The reason why a round in a game is 6 seconds of in-game time not real time is because your characters have had the years of training to think quickly in a battle situation. Most of us in real life have not.
I am not a fan of set timers. Everyone thinks and speaks at different paces. If it was taking a long time then I would start to pressure it, but I wouldn't base this on a set time. I'd rather have somebody take a few extra seconds and make good, effective use of their turns than somebody who has to scrap their plans because they didn't have time especially if the character taking the turn immediately before theirs just did something big that changes things.
Forcing players to think super fast on everything or lose out because it's combat can be VERY stressful for some people and being pressured like that is not fun at all. Perhaps don't punish your slower thining players just because you don't know how to engage them in combat better?
Perhaps, rather than putting the work on the players to "just be faster" you can instead just do your job as a DM and come up with more interesting combat? Assess the combats you make and see what you can do to make it more interesting. Perhaps there's a trap an enemy can spring on a PC, maybe there are flammable things and they set them alight to create hazards that their allies can use against the PCs. Maybe there are hostages. Perhaps their are enemies hidden waiting for the best moment to come in and stir things up. Perhaps an enemy drinks a potion and turns into something bigger and more terrifying - not only does this mean they have a stronger enemy to deal with but also the intrigue of what the potion was and where it came from and if there's more - there's an adventure hook the PCs may be baited by. Perhaps the lead enemy spends a turn to monologue giving sound, justifiable reasons for their actions and now the PCs have to decide if they agree or not and whether to continue the attack perhaps suspending the combat for some social interactions to find out more and depending how those go it could mean the combat ends or resumes. Maybe the enemies start to flee and now you have a chase sequence. A natural disaster occurs and now they have to choose - continue fighting in the suddenly very unsafe situation or get out or even work together so innocents do not die (not all enemies will be the "kill everyone" kind, in fact it could be entirely possible the enemy is a "good" character but they're out for revenge against the benefactor your PCs were hired to protect).
Just a few thoughts, not had chance to test any of these ideas because I've been a DM for all of 2 sessions but I think I would try these over "think as fast as I do or be useless".
I wholeheartedly agree with Cybermind. I once had a DM who rushed me whenever I made a play (You have three seconds to read your ability and decide whether or not you're going to use your reaction, 1, 2, 3.") and as I result, I was too rushed to think straight whenever I had something to do and didn't have much fun in that game. Real life time and game time are different, and they should be treated as such. In addition, I think it's important to give your players a bit more time then they should need, just because D&D is complicated and it's not always easy to pick what you're trying to do.
As others have proposed there are other ways to make combat more interesting; Allow creative reaction use, group some monsters together in initiative, and gently encourage your players to hurry up if they're taking awhile, well respecting that they're human too. Who will function well when being timed and told to execute their turn as quickly as possible? And what time will you have to ask rules questions the DM? Timing your players will just make them nervous and stressed, and I don't think it's a good idea whatsoever.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is good advice. The DM can look other players in the eye when describing the results of actions. If the attack misses, the arrow can "fly past Wizzy the Wizard's head, narrowly missing!" Then, "The orc responds by pointing a green finger at the ranger, saying, 'You're next, elf!' The orc then turns his attention back to Wizzy and..."
Arcadia magazine, issue 13, by MCDM has a really good article about Group Maneuevers. This allows PCs to use their reactions to set up each other in unique ways. Might be useful for you to give players more interesting options when it isn't there turn.
Outside of that, it depends on how long players are taking. If it's a fully reasonable amount of time, then maybe you just need to talk with the bored player and tell them that other players are attentive during their turn, and they owe it to the others to be their hype man/woman too.
Sometimes no amount of mechanics will fix the issue, and it comes down to player ettiquette.
Again though, some players aren't in for that and if that's not the issue this only prolongs combat if they're more of a hack and slash beer and pretzels kind of group.
I'm not saying don't use descriptions at all- far from it- but it isn't the be all end all solution people are painting it to be. I know if every action taken in my games were described with passion and gusto my players would fall asleep. Sometimes a turn of actions is just you hit the orc and it doesn't need to be a thrilling moment.
Having some time to think if needed can require more than 6 seconds, upon occasion, but generally a choice should be reachable well before 30 seconds. Perhaps somewhere in between. Six seconds is cool because that was the original 1e "segment" time period that would now be a character's round, but sometimes a game isn't as fluid as real life. Maybe 6 seconds with a 30 second time out rule allowed once per each encounter per player (if needed to look something up or think hard on a riddle that an INT 18 character could figure out more easily than the real life Player).
I understand the way kids grow up these days lends to their inability to have any sense of patience, but this is a game of learning, so why not also learn some patience and respect for fellow players around the table while we're at it. You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find, you get what you need. -Rolling Stones.
Pallutus
Agreed. Sometimes the point is a glorious combat scene where the PCs valiantly turn the horde back. Sometimes the point is to prompt someone to ask what those orcs were doing in that valley anyway.
@OP I tend to emphasize opportunities for PCs to use reactions or readying actions in this situation. Holding a player accountable for what everyone else at the table witnessed helps too (sounds like, "The monster does what?! I would have used my reaction to AoO!" and me pointing out that I announced the monsters action twice while looking at you and everyone saw me do it, and everyone else nodding.)
I try to implement count downs of any duration in only the most incorrigible cases, as I find those types of limits are more of a restraint on me as a DM, as I usually have many more creatures to track than any PC does in any given combat.
Matt Coleville has this thing he calls "Orcs ATTACK!!" If the players take too long, things happen. If they aren't in combat, something comes along and now they are. If they are, but they are taking a long time, the beat goes on. Maybe they just freeze, like a deer in the headlights (even though they have the initiative) giving up their moment to a troubling inability to make a decision! OOPS. Perhaps allow them to use their action as dodge, etc....
Pallutus
I've tried these suggestions, with mixed success.
If a player asks me, "Wait, what just happened?" and they weren't paying attention then I would love to not tell them. What usually happens though is that two or three other players then tell them, wasting even more time.
I've tried giving players 30 seconds to give me an action (or lose the turn due to indecisiveness, the character does not move and takes the Defend action) , but we have at least one player who I'm pretty certain is completely unable to do that.
If it is the player's turn and they ask questions about the battlefield, then I do require the use of the Investigation Action. A question like "Which of the orcs is most wounded?" or "Has the enemy caster used their Reaction?" would have been answered if they were paying attention. At the start of each turn I give a really quick description of the battlefield (something like, "Four archers, one troll, troll is not very wounded, the bard is almost dead, wizard what do you do?"). If they want more details, they need to spend an action looking.
Now the mixed success I talked about before all comes from hurt feelings. While I'd love to be harsh (because by all thats good in the world, my group are SLOOOOOW at combats), I also don't want to hurt feelings. This is a hobby, after all.
You have to balance everything to the people at the table (and note that you, the GM, are also a person at the table - your feelings matter just as much as everyone else).
.
Very much agree here. This doesn't just apply to new players but also more experienced players that may not fully understand how the DM tends to run combat. I think having those lower threat encounters earlier in a campaign can be a huge boon to players not only getting used to their characters but also their teammates as well. Thinking tactically about what your character does in a situation takes practice. Thinking tactically about what your character does in a situation in support of and relative to your teammates takes practice AND coordination. Compound all this with the fact that some classes are inherently more complex than others and that can lead to slower decision making. But, as with most things, it's a learning process.
This is a tricky part. Definitely, it's not about being crappy to anyone, but just getting people in the mode of thinking of their moves as other players are doing theirs and realizing while it's turn based on initiative, it's also like a real-time event. Having said that, people do need to have some patience and respect for their fellow party members/players. It's meant to be a learning environment, after all.
Pallutus
Honestly, this kind of stuff should be covered by Session 0.
I worry here that it's the group dynamic to blame in what's been described. It's not the DM, it's not the players, it's everyone who is letting each other down. There's been some great suggestions like ensuring that you and your players describe combat, even in a hack and slash setting that really does and should add to the session. I think too that giving the players a limited amount of time to act can help.
I find myself wondering about how you set up combat. Are you creating combat areas in which players can take advantage of tactical options. It sounds to me like battlemaps and some tactical litter would really add to the way the players engage with the combat. So, for example last night my party encountered for the first time a ruin. I knew that a dragon was incoming, but they did not. They simply saw a chest of gold and caught glimpse of a creature. They were on approach from the right to the left.
Now for combat the players have a lot of options in this ruin. There is cover aplenty to take advantage of, and I described the ruined towers as standing 60ft high with some walkways, stairs and balconies. The players in short had the ability to take advantage of cover, concealment, and height. On approach I had told them they could see a ruin but on approach there were bushes and trees that staggered the landscape. Their approach was to send in the eldest of their party to act like a senile old lady just out for a stroll to reminisce over what this building once was. It was her who first saw the guard drake guarding the ruins and the treasure. The rogue meanwhile scaled the ruined tower on the bottom right of the screen. In a battlefield like this the players, to my mind, should never get bored. They've always got something to be thinking about. In this map there is the approach. Then there's the treasure that they could get to. Then as if that wasn't enough and as they were just about to make their move on the guard drake which was headed toward the old lady of the party, a roar thunders through the sky and the rogue sees a dragon soaring through the sky towards them.
The rest of the party didn't hear me tell the rogue he saw a dragon...that was done with a discreet note. So what the rest of the party saw was the rogue quickly making his way down the tower and away from the battle...despite that massive pile of gold I'd thrown in the north west tower to entice them in.
And this really is the one piece of advice I haven't seen offered. Forget the mechanics of the game for a moment. How are you setting up your battlegrounds? Are you giving players the space and environments that lead to interesting battles? Are you giving them something which requires them to think and observe what their comrades are up to? Or have you given them yet another dungeon room that's pretty sparsely populated and barely described?
Hopefully, my description is of help here. And please do not think by any means that I'm suggesting I'm an expert in this. I'm not. I'm a DM like you who is trying to interpret what you're asking from my own experience. If you disagree that's cool.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
I'm very considerate when it's not my turn. I watch what is happening and plan out my turn so when the DM announces I'm up I can rattle it off fairly quickly. People should not be dallying and taking up a full minute to decide what they want to do when it's their turn. In a 5 man party you've had 4 other PC turns and the DM's turn to decide on what you're going to do. People need to speed the f up and get it together.
I agree with this. If you're going to do combat (or anything important like a jailbreak or social encounter), then add some flavor. If the party gets attacked by level 0.5 street urchins, then don't even roll dice. Handwave it. This keeps the (unimportant) minutae to a minimum and keeps things more exciting.
Have you tried alternative initiative systems? For example, the speed factor variant from the DMG, or popcorn initiative as written about by AngryGM.
This is simple: At the start of every turn, have all players decide - at the same time - what they want to do, roll the dice they need to roll, etc. They can briefly discuss how to avoid running into each others fireballs and so on, but otherwise everyone makes decisions and rolls in tandem.
On their turn, they only inform of results: I run to D7, and strike with my glaive for 14 points of damage (provided a 21 is enough to hit).
Bam! Combat is quick and fun, and no one has to wait while player X fiddles around with his spell list, trying to decide what to cast.
Very rarely a bit of postproduction editing needs to take place, but it's basically not even worth mentioning.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Sorry this might work for you but is really bad advice, 6 seconds is the time in game a combat round it, out of game at the table players need to review the situation, spell casters need to think about what spell they want to cast, a player can make a plan and then have that thrown out the door within 2 rounds by what the players before them do, or what the monsters do. The cleric might have planned to cast an offensive spell but suddenly needs to think more tactically about who to revivify. There is checking on spell rules if the spell is not one they use all the time, thinking about positioning on the board. But also 6 seconds, if they have 2 attacks it takes more then 6 seconds to roll the dice, add up damage, decide on the bonus actions to be taken etc. Setting such a short time limit forces players to do the same things over and over and over and stop trying to get creative. "Can I cut the rope to that chandlier and ride it up to the balcony to attack the crossbowmen" Sure you can try lets work out the rolls you need for that.
I set my players a time limit of a minute and am a little flexible with that if the payer needs to confirm a ruling on a spell etc before they attempt it. In reality I would say in person most rounds players are within that minute, unless the rogue or paladin crit on a sneak attack/smite, and then there is all that math to do :)
Actually re readong back I think you have totally misinterpreted the rules here.
An encounter might be over in 2 minutes of game time, but in real time might take an hour or 2 to run. 2 minutes of game time is 20 turns of combat. A turn is 6 seconds, with all players and monsters acting almost simultaneously in that 6 seconds (with initiative order indicating who gets the slight millisecond jump) it is not 6 seconds of game time to represent something that takes hours in game.
I think the issue isn't/should not be/wasn't how long resolving the action, but more of just making the decision about what one will do in that round. However long it takes to resolve that action in real time (dice rolling, reading the spell, etc...) is a different issue. In addition, it is, of course, completely possible that a player may make a decision, read a spell and realize that doesn't work for the situation the way it was intended, so the player has to make a different decision. Hopefully this is the exception, rather than the rule. Most players can have a good idea of what they want to do while other players are taking their actions. The player could even read up on a spell or game rule while waiting, just to make sure. So, often times, the decision to change the chosen action can occur before it's the player's turn. Once again, I still think that players should show some patience and overcome the short attention spans they have learned from our daily lifestyles of 4 or 5G response times to everything. D&D the TTRPG is not meant to have a computer game paced action.
Pallutus
try to keep your players engaged by overdramaticizing the enemys reaction because if it get say blown up by fireball say things like as the fireball hits itsbody it erupts into flame and splitting its limbs into many pieces and make it gory if your players can tolerate it but simply keep them engaged by being dramatic
Yeah, that was suggested, but it was shot down because there seem to be other valid options. Thus, this one would never work.
I like it, though. What else would a DM want the players to pay attention to besides an interesting game in front of them? If players fall asleep or stack dice, it's possible they are not finding entertainment.
I wholeheartedly agree with Cybermind. I once had a DM who rushed me whenever I made a play (You have three seconds to read your ability and decide whether or not you're going to use your reaction, 1, 2, 3.") and as I result, I was too rushed to think straight whenever I had something to do and didn't have much fun in that game. Real life time and game time are different, and they should be treated as such. In addition, I think it's important to give your players a bit more time then they should need, just because D&D is complicated and it's not always easy to pick what you're trying to do.
As others have proposed there are other ways to make combat more interesting; Allow creative reaction use, group some monsters together in initiative, and gently encourage your players to hurry up if they're taking awhile, well respecting that they're human too. Who will function well when being timed and told to execute their turn as quickly as possible? And what time will you have to ask rules questions the DM? Timing your players will just make them nervous and stressed, and I don't think it's a good idea whatsoever.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.