TheRPGSite

As someone who runs a big group amongst my friends, I've run into trouble lately managing the chaos. What are some techniques you use to pace the game and maintain order?

Right now, I have around 8 players give or take. When we have that much, there's a lot of crosstalk, which makes it hard to get into character, and for everyone to get a word in. In fact, we tend to get into a lot of OOC analysis during combat too. That makes it last a longer, and then inevitably some people might get bored and you'll have side conversations start until I rein things back in. And then some players naturally gravitate to taking control of the pace, but it ends up with them basically playing the other player's characters for them, so I want to cut down on that. Stuff like, I'll ask what they all do, and one player jumps in and lays out a chain of events for all of them and then they all just basically say, "what he said."

I'm thinking of instituting the following measures and seeing what happens:

1) No talking outside your turn during combat.

2) You can only speak for yourself. It doesn't matter if you're all going to do the same thing, you all still have to individually say it, rather than one person saying, "Okay now we all leave" even if you agreed with it.

3) IC talk only. This is the hardest one and the one most likely to go, but we'll see.

There are other issues, like half the group favoring kick-down-the-door style play while the other half wants to meticulously plan an operation, but I think that might be easier to manage.

8 players does seem like a lot, I'd probably draw the line at 5 or 6.

I've never been in the military. But when I was playing World of Warcraft and involved in raiding I came to appreciate the problems of group dynamics and trying to get everyone involved and working together toward a goal. Doing 10 man raids was rough enough, but going for 15, 25 or 40... hell. Even when it was a guild event and we all knew each other and worked together repeatedly there were problems. I gotta hand it to my guild leaders, they really were a step above the rest of us. I was an officer in my guild and rather well liked by all and still I didn't want to lead raids.

That was all easy on-line stuff with people playing in the quiet and comfort of their homes. Turn those group dynamics to the real world and trying to move a dozen or more guys in a military operation... damn. I fully appreciate the reasoning behind drill sergeants and demanding absolute discipline and compliance to orders.

So 8 players at a table... just imagine how difficult it would be if the characters were real and in a dangerous environment, with all the aches and pains and problems people have in their daily lives. The idea of "adventuring" would quickly lose its appeal. Most groups would get cut up real quick.

Well, there's one old school approach that can help pacing and maintain order, but it probably wouldn't meet all your needs. You could institute a Caller, an intermediary player that helps manage the players and keeps everyone on task. The Caller would not run the other characters, but would confer with everyone, acting as a leader for the group.

Quote from: Moldvay Basic D&DTo avoid confusion, the players should select one player to speak for the entire group or party. That player is named the caller. When unusual situations occur, each player may want to say what his or her character is doing. The caller should make sure that he or she is accurately representing all the player characters' wishes. The caller is a mediator between the players and the DM, and should not judge what the player characters should do.
...
The players may tell the DM what their characters are doing, but the game runs more smoothly when the caller relays the information. The caller should be sure to check with each member of the party before announcing any actions (such as "We'll turn right" or "The thief will check for traps").

Quote from: Doughdee222;8601068 players does seem like a lot, I'd probably draw the line at 5 or 6.

I've never been in the military. But when I was playing World of Warcraft and involved in raiding I came to appreciate the problems of group dynamics and trying to get everyone involved and working together toward a goal. Doing 10 man raids was rough enough, but going for 15, 25 or 40... hell. Even when it was a guild event and we all knew each other and worked together repeatedly there were problems. I gotta hand it to my guild leaders, they really were a step above the rest of us. I was an officer in my guild and rather well liked by all and still I didn't want to lead raids.

That was all easy on-line stuff with people playing in the quiet and comfort of their homes. Turn those group dynamics to the real world and trying to move a dozen or more guys in a military operation... damn. I fully appreciate the reasoning behind drill sergeants and demanding absolute discipline and compliance to orders.

So 8 players at a table... just imagine how difficult it would be if the characters were real and in a dangerous environment, with all the aches and pains and problems people have in their daily lives. The idea of "adventuring" would quickly lose its appeal. Most groups would get cut up real quick.

It's actually more like 12 players total but 7-8 can actually show up on any given session. It makes scheduling less painful since there's always people around too.

The main reason everybody's lumped into one giant group is that we don't get to play that often, so splitting everyone into two groups would just make it so everyone plays half as much. That and the original reason we started playing in the first place was so all of us could have something to do together.

Quote from: K Peterson;860107Well, there's one old school approach that can help pacing and maintain order, but it probably wouldn't meet all your needs. You could institute a Caller, an intermediary player that helps manage the players and keeps everyone on task. The Caller would not run the other characters, but would confer with everyone, acting as a leader for the group.

I thought of this, but isn't that basically what the DM does anyway? What would the Caller do that the DM doesn't? Also would the Caller be an IC leader or an OOC one? It seems like it would turn the game into all OOC talk, though that's fine if it works. I floated the concept of Caller before and the players didn't seem keen on the idea of there being a "leader."

A wandering monster appears every time crosstalk occurs over your voice.  Works an absolute treat.

The Caller talks to the referee, the other players talk quietly to the Caller.

Essentially it's running the session in character.  If your players are sitting around blathering, their characters are having a loud gabfest in the middle of the tenth level of the dungeon (or whatever.)  Whatever the referee hears, the character is saying out loud.

Well, it's just another organizational tool for the DM if you've got a large group of players. It's one less thing for you to deal with if the players can self-manage. As the DM, you have one focal point to pull actions from instead of having to deal with a cacophony of voices yourself. Basically, it's off-loading the responsibility of asking each player what they want to do on to someone else. You're already going to have a lot to manage with 8+ players so why not outsource some of your busy-work?

If planning and OOC chatter becomes too extensive, then as the DM you can impose time restrictions to keep the pacing going. I don't recall how long combat rounds are in 5e, but I imagine they're still measured in seconds. You don't have to stare at a stopwatch and count down time, but you can remind the players that you need their actions soon. And after a few reminders you can skip their turn if they dilly-dally for too long. That'll get their attention. :)

It would have the potential of limiting IC talk a little, but you'd still roleplay out conversations and other IC activities on an individual basis.

A Caller is primarily an OOC leader, though there's no reason why they couldn't be an IC one as well.

Or you could just say "Are you fuckers here to game or to talk?  Then shut the fuck up!"

I should say that the Caller is a concept that works very well in versions of D&D with group-initiative. The role would require some tweaking with versions that use individual-initiative.

Quote from: K Peterson;860117I should say that the Caller is a concept that works very well in versions of D&D with group-initiative. The role would require some tweaking with versions that use individual-initiative.

The Caller is mostly useful for non-combat.  Auction style initiative works fine during combat.  (Any 6s?  Any 5s?  etc)

Quote from: K Peterson;860117I should say that the Caller is a concept that works very well in versions of D&D with group-initiative. The role would require some tweaking with versions that use individual-initiative.

What do you mean?

And yeah I imagined it would be most useful for outside of combat.

If they're going to talk IC though how would they talk to the Caller OOC? Would they just say the stuff they would normally say to me? Or would the Caller just listen to everybody's opinions IC and then make a decision OOC? That seems like a decision that should be made IC though.

Definitely number two, people speaking for themselves.

But here's the major caveat: declare actions within a time limit or be skipped.

I will absolutely guarantee you a few rounds of their PC standing around being slapped about will bring their attention back with stiletto sharpness. Or they will throw a hissy and walk from the table, which is also a plus. Or their character dies and they are finally free to pursue their primary interest in full. There is nothing but win from this approach.

There's nothing wrong with socializing and dithering during lulls. But there's also the expectation that you will also be courteous to others during crunch time. So timeliness during time sensitive situations (i.e. combat) is not an unreasonable expectation.

(Fog of War initiative has so much layered utility it is an absolute wonder why people thought we could "reinvent the wheel." Culls tactical metagaming and social dithering in a single stroke. It even works wonders as a penalty on those who continually talk too loud and drown out other critical conversation, like between the GM & the active PC. Enjoy!)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860113A wandering monster appears every time crosstalk occurs over your voice.  Works an absolute treat.

Depends on the system. In WOTC editions it is just extra XP on the hoof. Wandering monsters don't drain resources while providing little benefit as they did originally.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860121What do you mean?

By group-initiative? I mean where a single d6 is rolled per side involved in a combat to determine which group (characters or monsters) move/act first. Rather than individual-initiative where a die is rolled per player (and per monster) and the movement/actions of characters and monsters is interspersed throughout the combat round.

In B/X D&D, at least, actions can be declared for the entire group and the order in which they occur depends on the type of action (movement, missile fire, magic use, hand-to-hand combat). So, it's easier for a Caller to declare exactly what all the characters are doing during a round.

In other versions of D&D, you have characters taking action after the action of monsters, so a character might elect to take a different action based on what another character does, or what a monster does. So, it would be more challenging to announce what a party is doing during combat because actions might change due to circumstances.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860118Auction style initiative works fine during combat.  (Any 6s?  Any 5s?  etc)

Is that how initiative works in OD&D? I know shit-and-nothing about OD&D, and am a little surprised that it doesn't use group-initiative like a number of other 'early' systems (late 70s and early 80s stuff).

Quote from: K Peterson;860128Is that how initiative works in OD&D? I know shit-and-nothing about OD&D, and am a little surprised that it doesn't use group-initiative like a number of other 'early' systems (late 70s and early 80s stuff).

Auction style is for resolution of values. If Individual Modifiers are used you can get members of the group going at different counts in the initiative order. Yet Group Initiative is something that carried all the way through to at least 2e.

The different individual values came about when people started adding in Individual Modifiers. So you often had a choice at tables of Group Initiative - Group Modifiers or Group Initiative - Individual Modifiers. By 2e you also had Individual Initiative and Individual Modifiers, which became the de facto format by 3e and beyond.

Quote from: K Peterson;860127By group-initiative? I mean where a single d6 is rolled per side involved in a combat to determine which group (characters or monsters) move/act first. Rather than individual-initiative where a die is rolled per player (and per monster) and the movement/actions of characters and monsters is interspersed throughout the combat round.

In B/X D&D, at least, actions can be declared for the entire group and the order in which they occur depends on the type of action (movement, missile fire, magic use, hand-to-hand combat). So, it's easier for a Caller to declare exactly what all the characters are doing during a round.

In other versions of D&D, you have characters taking action after the action of monsters, so a character might elect to take a different action based on what another character does, or what a monster does. So, it would be more challenging to announce what a party is doing during combat because actions might change due to circumstances.

Nah I know what Group Initiative is; I meant, how would you have to change things up to use Caller with individual initiative.

The Caller is useful primarily in for dungeon exploration type activities i.e. "We go left", "we leave this room now", "we set a trap for the gnolls", "we search for traps before heading down this hall." Party caller listens to the other players and passes a decision onto the GM. Callers can be good for those folks who like to "plan."
A Caller might say "we attack the gnolls," or "we negotiate with the gnolls" but when the combat starts everyone is making their own decision.
Caller's are useful because while all the other players can say "I" the Caller can say "we."

I'd also suggest that you change who is the party caller somewhat regularly (from session to session), this mitigates some sense of their being "one leader."

You could also consider having a second or assistant GM. This person might RP an NPC or monster or three, but would help the most when combat breaks out.
I've never done this myself, but I have heard of others who have and had a good time with it.

But what I mean is, for "we" to do anything, it would have to be done IC right? But IC people are saying what THEY, specifically, do themselves. So then the Caller isn't saying what "we" do after all.

Or is it like, the party has a debate about what they should do. Go left, go right. Then the Caller makes the final decision.

Gygax and Arneson both used individual initiative from day one, and OD&D doesn't specify any method,  But INDIVIDUAL initiative is the oldest system.

Also I don't get how using the "fog of war" method would cut down on crosstalk. They could all still coordinate what they want to do even if they don't know what the result will be. "heal me, let's all attack the boss," etc.

Also what happens if something happens like a spellcaster wants to get a spell but also gets attacked. Do they get attacked first, then get to cast their spell? Or do they cast "first" and then have to make a Concentration check if they were hit?

At conventions I had to DM for groups upwards of 10 and one Albedo session had quite a few players that I do not nave my notes handu for the head count at the moment but was up there. The main problem was keeping everyone enguaged. This somewhat solved itself in the Albedo session as it was a political intrigue setup and the PCs not actively interacting with the NPCs were wheeling and dealing with eachother. Then the ILR showed up and the shooting started and things resolved into a managable who acts when. I dont pay much attention to the talk until its someones turn or I am directly addressing them.

For me it actually helps that I am hearing impaired and can just tell players to not talk over eachother as then I both have trouble tracking who is actually talking and it tends to interfere too much. Players have thus far been pretty good about that.

In like D&D its much the same. I focus on who the action is centered on at the moment and if someone is trying to talk over it I warn them to cut it out of necessary.

Sometimes its just players getting really excited and into the session. Which is not a bad thing usually.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860110I thought of this, but isn't that basically what the DM does anyway? What would the Caller do that the DM doesn't?

This question is backwards.  There's nothing the caller does that the DM doesn't normally do, but there are a lot of things the DM does which the caller doesn't do.  Using a caller takes the load of polling the players, coordinating everyone's actions into a single semi-coherent mass, etc. off the DM and gives the DM time to think/plan/update notes/etc. while the players and the caller discuss their actions among themselves.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860155Or is it like, the party has a debate about what they should do. Go left, go right. Then the Caller makes the final decision.

The party has a debate about what they should so, reaches a consensus, and then the caller reports that consensus to the DM.  It's really more of an administrative position than a leadership post.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860108It's actually more like 12 players total but 7-8 can actually show up on any given session. It makes scheduling less painful since there's always people around too.

The main reason everybody's lumped into one giant group is that we don't get to play that often, so splitting everyone into two groups would just make it so everyone plays half as much. That and the original reason we started playing in the first place was so all of us could have something to do together.

No it wouldn't. It would make it so they play half as often, but in each session they'd get to do twice as much stuff with a half-size group. So actual play time would be about the same, maybe better if there is less cross talk and quicker group decision making with the smaller group size.

Quote from: Opaopajr;860123(Fog of War initiative has so much layered utility it is an absolute wonder why people thought we could "reinvent the wheel." Culls tactical metagaming and social dithering in a single stroke. It even works wonders as a penalty on those who continually talk too loud and drown out other critical conversation, like between the GM & the active PC. Enjoy!)

This sounds interesting. What do you mean by Fog of War initiative?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860102As someone who runs a big group amongst my friends, I've run into trouble lately managing the chaos. What are some techniques you use to pace the game and maintain order?

Right now, I have around 8 players give or take. When we have that much, there's a lot of crosstalk, which makes it hard to get into character, and for everyone to get a word in. In fact, we tend to get into a lot of OOC analysis during combat too. That makes it last a longer, and then inevitably some people might get bored and you'll have side conversations start until I rein things back in. And then some players naturally gravitate to taking control of the pace, but it ends up with them basically playing the other player's characters for them, so I want to cut down on that. Stuff like, I'll ask what they all do, and one player jumps in and lays out a chain of events for all of them and then they all just basically say, "what he said."

I'm thinking of instituting the following measures and seeing what happens:

1) No talking outside your turn during combat.

2) You can only speak for yourself. It doesn't matter if you're all going to do the same thing, you all still have to individually say it, rather than one person saying, "Okay now we all leave" even if you agreed with it.

3) IC talk only. This is the hardest one and the one most likely to go, but we'll see.

There are other issues, like half the group favoring kick-down-the-door style play while the other half wants to meticulously plan an operation, but I think that might be easier to manage.

A lot of this sounds like failure to be assertive -- even aggressive -- and confident in yourself if I'm honest. Then again, maybe you don't have that kind of personality like I do so adapt as required.

Your suggestions:

1) Just tell them to leave the table and come back when they've got it out of their system (or have planned out what they're going to do next).

2) Keep it simple: contribute or shut up. As in Sons of Anarchy, "You don't ride, you don't vote". If they make it a habit, take away their agency and control and use that PC as an NPC companion for the PCs actually doing shit (ala Bioware games style companions). It's worked more than once for me.

3) This should be happening anyway. If you have a confident personality, then push them to act and talk in-character by putting them on the spot frequently when RP'ing one of your NPCs.

Hosting games for "large groups" (I honestly see them as normal-sized -- less than 7-8 is too small for me) is one of the best parts of tabletop RPGs ever! It's really not that hard. You'd be surprised how much of your work is done for you by the PCs if you just let em'.

Here's couple of devices I use when hosting games at my club:

The Interaction Moment (IM)

When your PCs have a chance to catch their breath or they're not making any rolls that might affect their choices or status going forward, give them some alone time. If your PCs do not require nor ask for your attention, don't give it to them. Leave them be. Let them talk with each other and roleplay as they will. It might be only several seconds, it could even be several minutes. They don't even need to be at the table to do this -- they can find a couch somewhere nearby, step into the hallway or pull their chairs away from the table. It leaves you free to focus on other players who are doing stuff that might get their character killed or something.

Don't Initiative for non-pitched combat or battles and confrontations that aren't critical

Seriously, it's more work than necessary. Most importantly, randomly prompt any of the PCs to make them move. If they don't move, you come back to them. If they make a habit of not moving, they lose their move automatically each time afterwards they might otherwise be prompted. Keep it roughly even but don't sweat it if some PCs get a move or two more than others. It keeps em' on their toes.

There are many more things you can do but those two right there are platinum.

Quote from: Bren;860391This sounds interesting. What do you mean by Fog of War initiative?

Not to answer for Opa, but we've been talking about this topic recently...

Generally speaking, Fog of War initiative means having the overall initiative order be unknown to the players, and rerolling initiative each round.  Often the players must declare their actions before initiative is rolled or revealed.

Quote from: Bren;860391No it wouldn't. It would make it so they play half as often, but in each session they'd get to do twice as much stuff with a half-size group. So actual play time would be about the same, maybe better if there is less cross talk and quicker group decision making with the smaller group size.

This, on toast points with Hollandaise.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860157Also I don't get how using the "fog of war" method would cut down on crosstalk. They could all still coordinate what they want to do even if they don't know what the result will be. "heal me, let's all attack the boss," etc.

With a "fog of war" approach there is still player coordination, but several factors come into play to reduce the overall cros-talk and analysis paralysis.  

Since the initiative order of the players and NPCs is unknown each round, this is one less set of data points that have to be crunched.

Also, since the players declare their actions before the round starts and before any initiative points are revealed, you don't have to call a detailed tactics moot before every player's turn.  You do what you declared, or you don't.  This greatly minimizes intra-round tactical chatter.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860157Also what happens if something happens like a spellcaster wants to get a spell but also gets attacked. Do they get attacked first, then get to cast their spell? Or do they cast "first" and then have to make a Concentration check if they were hit?

It depends on the rules you're using.  If I recall correctly, you're playing 5e currently, as am I, so I'll answer in that context.  

Rounds are still resolved in initiative order.  We play that if a caster has declared that they will cast a spell, and they are hit before their turn, then they must make a concentration check to not have their spell interrupted (for us an interrupted spell doesn't burn up the spell slot). We noodled around with the idea of porting in segment-based casting times, but ditched that idea pretty quickly in favor of what I just described.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;860413A lot of this sounds like failure to be assertive -- even aggressive -- and confident in yourself if I'm honest. Then again, maybe you don't have that kind of personality like I do so adapt as required.

I'm actually extremely confident and assertive normally. But when I was learning how to DM and reading around, all the literature said that it was immature to throw your weight around and to talk things out like reasonable adults, etc., etc., so it made me kind of gunshy to just slam the book on the table and tell people to shut up or whatever. That and the people doing it obviously enjoy playing this way, so given that "there's no right way to play" it made me hesitant to smack that down.

Also I like your suggestions; got any more? Though the 2nd one sounds like the kind that would get one labelled as an immature DM that abuses their power by the kind of literature I was mentioning.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;860632With a "fog of war" approach there is still player coordination, but several factors come into play to reduce the overall cros-talk and analysis paralysis.  

Since the initiative order of the players and NPCs is unknown each round, this is one less set of data points that have to be crunched.

Also, since the players declare their actions before the round starts and before any initiative points are revealed, you don't have to call a detailed tactics moot before every player's turn.  You do what you declared, or you don't.  This greatly minimizes intra-round tactical chatter.




It depends on the rules you're using.  If I recall correctly, you're playing 5e currently, as am I, so I'll answer in that context.  

Rounds are still resolved in initiative order.  We play that if a caster has declared that they will cast a spell, and they are hit before their turn, then they must make a concentration check to not have their spell interrupted (for us an interrupted spell doesn't burn up the spell slot). We noodled around with the idea of porting in segment-based casting times, but ditched that idea pretty quickly in favor of what I just described.

Ah okay, so they use initiative order still. That makes sense then. Also yes, it's 5E.

Couldn't they still coordinate and have a strategy meeting BEFORE rolling initiative when they're all declaring what they'll do? Or do you allow that and it just ends up being less time anyway.

Also what's your guys take on the party spending a long time planning something?

Should the goal be to keep a brisk pace and start throwing random encounters at them if they start going around in circles over their plans?

Or is it just as fine if they spend 4 hours just debating what to do and then do nothing.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860654Ah okay, so they use initiative order still. That makes sense then. Also yes, it's 5E.

Couldn't they still coordinate and have a strategy meeting BEFORE rolling initiative when they're all declaring what they'll do? Or do you allow that and it just ends up being less time anyway.

Yeah, there's still the usual strategy talk before rolling for a given round, but since it's just once a round rather than a full re-evaluation on everybody's turn it works out to be much shorter.

For combat, I prefer "simultaneous moves", which means I go around the table getting each player's declaration of intent - bing, bing, bing - before getting into resolution. If someone's not ready, I may go on then come back; if he's not ready then, neither is his character.

Initiative -- which figure actually completes an action first -- is dealt with as needed after declaration, in the resolution phase.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860656Also what's your guys take on the party spending a long time planning something?

Should the goal be to keep a brisk pace and start throwing random encounters at them if they start going around in circles over their plans?

Or is it just as fine if they spend 4 hours just debating what to do and then do nothing.

It's fine if they take responsibility for their choice, though if it makes me as GM irrelevant then I might find a more interesting way to spend 4 hours of my time than sitting around listening to them.

If it's not cool with everyone, then we need to check it. However, I don't appreciate being treated as a first-resort 'club' against other players; the complaining player should address the situation first with the others (and if appropriate remedy it in character).

Changing encounter frequencies for such a reason (as opposed to reasons of the PCs attracting more WMs) is to my mind down the list of options. I can understand, though, why other GMs might turn to it sooner.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;860658Yeah, there's still the usual strategy talk before rolling for a given round, but since it's just once a round rather than a full re-evaluation on everybody's turn it works out to be much shorter.

How do you handle movement?

Suppose you have a Sorcerer next to a wagon and as the GM I control 4 Orcs that want to attack the Sorcerer. I say the Orcs move X spaces to the tile where the Sorcerer is near the wagon and attack him; the Sorcerer happens to say that he moves somewhere else and attacks another enemy.

Do the Orcs now just run to where the Sorcerer was even if he's not there anymore (he moved somewhere before them) or do you take it as an abstract "the Orcs try to go after the Sorcerer, wherever he happens to be at the time" thing.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860668How do you handle movement?

Suppose you have a Sorcerer next to a wagon and as the GM I control 4 Orcs that want to attack the Sorcerer. I say the Orcs move X spaces to the tile where the Sorcerer is near the wagon and attack him; the Sorcerer happens to say that he moves somewhere else and attacks another enemy.

Do the Orcs now just run to where the Sorcerer was even if he's not there anymore (he moved somewhere before them) or do you take it as an abstract "the Orcs try to go after the Sorcerer, wherever he happens to be at the time" thing.

It looks as if the approach in question is similar to my mine, so I'll answer for myself.

It's not a problem of 'movement' so much as intent. I learn intent by -- neat trick, this -- asking the player!

My guess from common sense may be correct: The orcs wish to attack the sorcerer, so they'll try to catch him, whereas the sorcerer doesn't care about them and is intent on whacking somebody else. If I am in doubt, though, why settle for assuming when I can instead get the actual answer?

Perhaps the part you don't get is that people are not frozen statues while others act. Unless you're doing something like teleporting at the last instant, your departure from where you were a few seconds ago, visible while I moved, won't be a surprise I discover only when I get there.

Well, I was thinking more of how movement is generally associated with a specific point on the grid when you normally play with one. You don't say "I move next to the Orc," you place your piece exactly where you want it. It just so happens that you follow it up with an attack.

But handling it abstractly sounds like a good solution there. Go after the target, not the positioning. What do you do if they had 2 conflicting goals in mind though?

Like suppose I declared that I want to move towards an enemy next to a lever, and attack him, and then flip the switch next to us. But the enemy ends up moving far away from the lever. Do I now go after the enemy or the lever? Would the GM just ask for more clarification when that comes up as the moves are being resolved?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860672Well, I was thinking more of how movement is generally associated with a specific point on the grid when you normally play with one. You don't say "I move next to the Orc," you place your piece exactly where you want it. It just so happens that you follow it up with an attack.

But handling it abstractly sounds like a good solution there. Go after the target, not the positioning. What do you do if they had 2 conflicting goals in mind though?

Like suppose I declared that I want to move towards an enemy next to a lever, and attack him, and then flip the switch next to us. But the enemy ends up moving far away from the lever. Do I now go after the enemy or the lever? Would the GM just ask for more clarification when that comes up as the moves are being resolved?

Basically, this is in my view way too much action to make sense as a 'turn' allowance in a multi-player game that's meant to move along briskly. I can only wonder on what basis the division was made; why not two, three or ten more "and then" clauses?

Anyhow, you don't have any decision to make there until the enemy starts to move. At that point, you can choose.

I'll say again, though, that it basically seems pointless in the first place to be counting so many chicks before the eggs are even laid.

Action = attack
Bonus action = flip switch

Isn't that part of a standard turn? Although I wondered if you can only use bonus actions for when special abilities specifically allow it, rather than for anything.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860681Action = attack
Bonus action = flip switch

Isn't that part of a standard turn? Although I wondered if you can only use bonus actions for when special abilities specifically allow it, rather than for anything.

Might be a "standard turn" in some game, and for all I know or care so might "10 action points". The jargon is beside the point.

The point is that 30 things per turn (3 each for 10 units, or whatever) might be pushing it even in a two-player game. Making one or more of those actually more than one thing ups the ante.

With 8, 9, 10 players, it really sucks to get hung up on one or two at a time over and over. Say you're taking 20 seconds per player; with 10 players, that's somebody waiting 3 minutes before he gets another chance to do something. And half a dozen other players at any time with a minute or more likewise on their hands.

People are pretty likely to get into side shows to pass the time, and no big surprise if those sometimes get more engaging than the supposed main event.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860672Like suppose I declared that I want to move towards an enemy next to a lever, and attack him, and then flip the switch next to us. But the enemy ends up moving far away from the lever. Do I now go after the enemy or the lever? Would the GM just ask for more clarification when that comes up as the moves are being resolved?

Why on Earth would the referee NOT ask?  I can think of no rational reason for doing anything else; the referee is supposedly supplying data to the player for making decisions.

Because from how it was described it sounded like there wouldn't need to be talking after declaring your initial actions, but once I started imagining how it would be run at my table I started seeing various scenarios that might need it.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860668How do you handle movement?

Suppose you have a Sorcerer next to a wagon and as the GM I control 4 Orcs that want to attack the Sorcerer. I say the Orcs move X spaces to the tile where the Sorcerer is near the wagon and attack him; the Sorcerer happens to say that he moves somewhere else and attacks another enemy.

Do the Orcs now just run to where the Sorcerer was even if he's not there anymore (he moved somewhere before them) or do you take it as an abstract "the Orcs try to go after the Sorcerer, wherever he happens to be at the time" thing.

I should probably mention that the way we play this is essentially the Speed Factor option in the 5e DMG, but without any of the actual speed factors affecting initiative values (that may sound like gibberish, but take a look at the section and you'll see what I mean).

You declare what you are going to do with your Action (capital A) before the round starts, and then when your turn in initiative comes up, you can use your Move, any Bonus action, and free interactions as you like in support of doing what you declared for your Action. Somewhere in your round, you either do your Action, or you don't take an Action.

We try not to get to the point of it being "pact with the devil" legalese. If you're going to attack a goblin, you don't have to name the one with the lazy left eye and the bushy nose hair if you don't care which particular goblin you attack.

Similarly, the GM commits to some sort of plan for the NPCs/monsters at the top of the round and sticks to it.

We do use a grid overlay for maps for general convenience, but aren't slavishly devoted to using the grid itself.

I have bee struck down with the lumbago, so I missed sooo much of this. Sorry everyone.

First, Natty Bodak and philip, thank you for fielding these questions. For the most part we seem to do things similarly, with minor variations and labels.

Second, I call it Fog of War because it encapsulate the experience of declaring first and then resolving. We have intent but things may not always work out as we intended. It's to simulate that liminal state in combat where our senses are heightened but our perspective of time starts to do screwy things. That and it is quicker to say (and sounds cooler, IMO) than "Declare First, Then Resolve," Initiative.

I will come back and answer mAcular's other questions from my experience and hopefully it will help his cause.

Quote from: Opaopajr;860785That and it is quicker to say (and sounds cooler, IMO) than "Declare First, Then Resolve," Initiative.

Definitely sounds cooler. You could go the acronym route:

DFTR: Declare First, Then Resolve. Which is pronounced defter, so it would be the defter initiative system.

I may have to try that for H+I. I could use rotating clockwise order of declaration so it isn't always the same player declaring first or last.

Oh and thanks for explaining and I hope you feel better soon.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860654Couldn't they still coordinate and have a strategy meeting BEFORE rolling initiative when they're all declaring what they'll do? Or do you allow that and it just ends up being less time anyway.

Of course they can still coordinate. BUT, in the middle of combat is not the place to do that in my games. I instead give them a very brief period to shout things at each other before I start going around the table asking for Declarations (often 6 seconds, as many games use that time size for rounds).

My reasons for doing this are several:

* Multiple game abilities out there grant longer periods to contemplate, or even coordinate, actions. I have no interest in stepping upon the toes of such abilities, rendering them useless.
* I have a vested interest in speeding up the game, especially during crisis moments. Our time to play is smaller nowadays.
* Players are still welcome to coordinate strategy, but it is best done outside of crisis moments, like combat. Besides devising stratagems and calling them out is great immersive fun ("Everyone, get into Z formation, Z formation!").
* Strategic dithering drags the game and often sucks the immersion out for others.
* Nervous players, normally proxies for more dominant players, freeze up looking for direction. By applying pressure, there's no time except to act. Eventually those players are rewarded for doing anything else and learn to find their own voice.
* Dominant players lose control of other PCs, culling their metagame action economy.
* Everyone will make mistakes, because things are under far less control. This kills much metagaming dead.
*There will be memorable opportunities -- and accidents -- due to this lowered control.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860656Also what's your guys take on the party spending a long time planning something?

Should the goal be to keep a brisk pace and start throwing random encounters at them if they start going around in circles over their plans?

Or is it just as fine if they spend 4 hours just debating what to do and then do nothing.

If at a loss to control the table, Egg Timer them.

In moments of down time, in safe areas, they are free to strategize as they please. I don't hamper that; I encourage it, in fact.

In moments of crisis, with the threat clear and present, they are free to dither while the danger keeps striking at them. By then tactical training takes over. Act or suffer the consequences.

In moments of danger, such as a tense area, remind them that time ticks on by. So exploration in such areas has a time element, but it is of medium-size, thus there is more time to manage planning. But not so much time as to not expect surprises, like wandering monsters.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860668How do you handle movement?

Suppose you have a Sorcerer next to a wagon and as the GM I control 4 Orcs that want to attack the Sorcerer. I say the Orcs move X spaces to the tile where the Sorcerer is near the wagon and attack him; the Sorcerer happens to say that he moves somewhere else and attacks another enemy.

Do the Orcs now just run to where the Sorcerer was even if he's not there anymore (he moved somewhere before them) or do you take it as an abstract "the Orcs try to go after the Sorcerer, wherever he happens to be at the time" thing.

Both Location and Object are useful target descriptors. Keep both, as it is a natural expression of how we use language now. Sometimes you want to hold the space where the doorway is. Sometimes you want to gun for the archer in the back row, regardless where they move. Stating what you mean is wonderfully clear as it is right now

First off, GM never openly Declares his strategy to the players. This prevents metagaming on the players' part.

Second off, GM decides NPC Declaration -- quietly in their head -- before PC Declaration. This prevents metagaming on the GM's part.

As for your example, I assume the GM is having the "Orcs target the Sorcerer."

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860672But handling it abstractly sounds like a good solution there. Go after the target, not the positioning. What do you do if they had 2 conflicting goals in mind though?

Like suppose I declared that I want to move towards an enemy next to a lever, and attack him, and then flip the switch next to us. But the enemy ends up moving far away from the lever. Do I now go after the enemy or the lever? Would the GM just ask for more clarification when that comes up as the moves are being resolved?

You resolve the primary intent before the secondary or tertiary intent, and so on.

So, if you want to hit the enemy and flip the switch in 5e, first I would ask a) your 1st priority, b) does order matter over convenience, and c) if you have enough actions to do so.

i.e. (5e) Third lvl Rogue Thief with Fast Hands, wants to stab with their dagger the orc next to the lever, flip the lever, and palm the key from the table 10' away to the side. They are 20' away from the orc+lever location. I ask about priorities about targets and order v. convenience. Player responds that flipping the lever is mission critical, and palming the key is secondary, hitting the orc becomes a tertiary opportunity.

Orc went first to stab at the mage, moving 10' away from both the lever and the Rogue. Since the Rogue was 20' away beforehand from the square where the Orc and lever were, suddenly distance and order matters. But with established priorities I as GM can easily resolve this.

The lever is done first, move 20' up to the lever and use "One Interact with the Environment." There is now 10' left, enough to reach the orc or the table, but not both. The key on the table is palmed second as a Bonus Action, move 10' to the table and Sleight of Hand (DEX) check to resist others' notice. No movement is now left.

Finally the attack upon the orc is done third as an Action. Since the orc is 10' away, and the dagger has no Reach, the orc is too far for melee. But the dagger can be thrown (20'/60'), so the attack is still doable. The dagger is thrown at the orc, and an attack roll is made.

philip is absolutely right that you are asking the player to clarify intent. This makes things so much easier, as the interface is basic language instead of a game system. All you're adding is the expectation of greater descriptive clarity from your players -- to talk more about what they're doing and why.

I'm enjoying your elaborations on the fog of war.

Quote from: Opaopajr;860789Second off, GM decides NPC Declaration -- quietly in their head -- before PC Declaration. This prevents metagaming on the GM's part.

One can't stress too much the importance of this. On the plus side for the PCs, since the GM is usually running a lot more people than any of the players, this sort of clock usually favors the players. On the minus side, its a lot easier for the GM to keep the NPCs organized. Depending on how tactically minded your players are, this may require the GM to use something like command rolls for the NPCs to see if their side makes mistakes in following orders.

Quote from: Bren;860786Definitely sounds cooler. You could go the acronym route:

DFTR: Declare First, Then Resolve. Which is pronounced defter, so it would be the defter initiative system.

I may have to try that for H+I. I could use rotating clockwise order of declaration so it isn't always the same player declaring first or last.

Oh and thanks for explaining and I hope you feel better soon.

Defter. That does sound cool. Hmm... Still rather dig Fog of War, though. It's all going to end up jargon after all, be it named or acronym.

As for rotating clockwise/counterclockwise, great idea. Players eventually metagame even those little bits. And it's showing there is no GM favoritism, while keeping them on their toes.

Thanks for the well wishes. I pulled my back over something stupid right at the start of my weekend: throwing a used facial tissue into the garbage. Not from dancing until 2 AM, not from moving boxes around in the garage, but from tossing facial tissue away from me. ... :mad:

Quote from: Opaopajr;860799I pulled my back over something stupid right at the start of my weekend: throwing a used facial tissue into the garbage. Not from dancing until 2 AM, not from moving boxes around in the garage, but from tossing facial tissue away from me. ... :mad:

My suggestion is lie about the reason. No one wants to hear that explanation. And doubly no one really wants to have to give that explanation.

It sounds much better if you say that last weekend you were hanging out out in a rough, seedy biker bar and you pulled a muscle while reaching too far over the bar to pick up the shotgun behind the bar.

Is it easy to remember an entire turn's worth of declarations before resolving them? I can imagine myself forgetting some of the details halfway through when dealing with 8 people.

Then again this would only be an issue if someone tries to be shifty and change up their answer when you ask.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860832Is it easy to remember an entire turn's worth of declarations before resolving them? I can imagine myself forgetting some of the details halfway through when dealing with 8 people.

Then again this would only be an issue if someone tries to be shifty and change up their answer when you ask.

Nope and yep.

That's one reason I say that what constitutes a 'turn' shouldn't be so complex when you've got a large group of players (or even a large set of independently acting units).

Quote from: Phillip;860963That's one reason I say that what constitutes a 'turn' shouldn't be so complex when you've got a large group of players (or even a large set of independently acting units).

Normally it isn't, but 5e has lots of "player empowerment" widgets. Multiple attacks are easy to suss out, just need to give me targets and priorities. But the extra bonus action, reaction, and extra actions atop that can get weedy.

However that's on the table to be understanding to the GM for running a large table with a mechanically rules-medium intensity game.

A good secret trick is index cards! Passes notes, keeps secrets, and good for quick priority reminders. They're not just for GMs anymore! I know what it's like to be in a 10+ table and drowned out by the noise.

How would "fog of war" handle Legendary actions?  I'm looking at a Lich right now, wondering where it's abilities would get slotted in.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;861111How would "fog of war" handle Legendary actions?  I'm looking at a Lich right now, wondering where it's abilities would get slotted in.

They are just that, legendary, doing things outside the normal turn framework.

Legendary Creatures
A legendary creature can do things that ordinary creatures can’t. Legendary creatures can take special actions outside their turns, and a few can exert power over their environment, causing extraordinary magical effects to occur in their vicinity.
Legendary Actions
A legendary creature can take a certain number of special actions—called legendary actions—outside its turn. Only one legendary action option can be used at a time and only at the end of another creature’s turn. A legendary creature regains spent legendary actions at the start of its turn. It isn’t required to use its legendary actions, and it can’t use legendary actions while incapacitated.
(Basic 5e D&D DMG/MM, Nov 2014. p.6.)

They are like Reactions, which by the way everyone still retains and use normally. You don't need to declare reactions as they are presumed at a faster (reflexive) speed than normal action planning. They occur when the actor indulges in the opportunity as it presents itself.

Legendary actions would be treated similarly except for three things:
a) they are defined as an action (this matters).
b) their timing window is explicitly curtailed to "end of another creature's turn."
c) their usage within said window is limited to "only one at a time" per "end of another creature's turn."

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;861111How would "fog of war" handle Legendary actions?  I'm looking at a Lich right now, wondering where it's abilities would get slotted in.

The nature of Legendary Actions (taken only at the end of another creature's turn*) make them seem to me like special Reactions with a more general type of trigger.  As such, I don't think the GM needs to do a particular behind-the-scenes declaration for them; decide to use them as appropriate in the moment.  

I am of the opinion that big, bad, solo-y monsters should be perhaps a little nastier than they are, and I would think that in your context of dealing with a larger group of players this is even more true. So, the more flexibility and just-in-time decision making on the monster's part, the more better badder the monster will be.

* Are there any exceptions to this, I wonder?  I haven't noticed any.

Quote from: Opaopajr;861121They are just that, legendary, doing things outside the normal turn framework.
...

I got scooped!

You both helped with that explanation so thanks.

Quote from: Opaopajr;860785First, Natty Bodak and philip, thank you for fielding these questions. For the most part we seem to do things similarly, with minor variations and labels.

Second, I call it Fog of War because it encapsulate the experience of declaring first and then resolving. We have intent but things may not always work out as we intended. It's to simulate that liminal state in combat where our senses are heightened but our perspective of time starts to do screwy things. That and it is quicker to say (and sounds cooler, IMO) than "Declare First, Then Resolve," Initiative.

I tried it out for the session I ran on Monday. It was only one player and one NPC, but it seemed to work OK. I'll try it with the entire group next time we play and see how it goes.

Quote from: Phillip;860963That's one reason I say that what constitutes a 'turn' shouldn't be so complex when you've got a large group of players (or even a large set of independently acting units).

I hope I'm not interrupting, but has anyone mentioned the 'combat round'? We used to have eight to ten players at Phil's all the time, and he and Dave would resolve combat by going around the table in a clockwise or counter-clockwise manner, picking each player in turn. If the play didn't think of anything to do, they got skipped, and the GM went on to the next person. This 'round' became the formal 'combat round', at least for us, and it seemed to have worked for us for years with large groups. I still use this, and it seems to get the players to shut up and concentrate on the game.

I was thinking of going around the table or by DEX order for non-combat too when it's a big group. ie, instead of everyone talking freely, have everybody wait their turn and speak up when it's their turn in the lineup, then move on to the next person.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;861212I was thinking of going around the table or by DEX order for non-combat too when it's a big group. ie, instead of everyone talking freely, have everybody wait their turn and speak up when it's their turn in the lineup, then move on to the next person.

That sounds like a really good idea.

The only problem is, it might be too artificial and regimented. Especially for a conversation.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;861174I hope I'm not interrupting, but has anyone mentioned the 'combat round'? We used to have eight to ten players at Phil's all the time, and he and Dave would resolve combat by going around the table in a clockwise or counter-clockwise manner, picking each player in turn. If the play didn't think of anything to do, they got skipped, and the GM went on to the next person. This 'round' became the formal 'combat round', at least for us, and it seemed to have worked for us for years with large groups. I still use this, and it seems to get the players to shut up and concentrate on the game.

Yes, I mentioned it, and I reckon I'm not only one.

You guys mean just going around the table in order? I've been using that now. I seat everybody by their DEX at the table and when it's not a super important battle I just use that order instead of rolling initiative, except for monsters.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;861216The only problem is, it might be too artificial and regimented. Especially for a conversation.

It can. You have to balance taking turns so people don't get ignored with interrupting the flow of a conversation. Most conversations have a natural break every few sentences or so. When you reach a natural break in the conversation you can switch to the next player.

Keep in mind, it's not a rule it's a guideline. You should use your own judgement when to use it. But since you have a large group, it makes sense to use some method to ensure everyone gets a fair chance to have their character do or say something.

The biggest key, frankly, is working under the expectation that players are paying attention and skipping over them when they're not.  Any system will work.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;861346The biggest key, frankly, is working under the expectation that players are paying attention and skipping over them when they're not.  Any system will work.

I hearily agree.

It is rewarding those who want to be there and are willing to give respect to the rest of the table. Those who are not interested soon will either catch on or move on. And for those who are shy they really shouldn't be in such a raucous and on point game anyway, as those dynamics will just shove them deeper into their own shell.

As brendan once noted for another subject, quantity is a quality all its own. And that quality is not for every participant.

I've only had to handle a group of more than eight players a few times. When starting out, I simply work around the table clockwise until we become familiar. Once we get settled in, I do the "auction" part where the players are called by their initiative roll. Interrupt another player and you forfeit your actions for that round.

I actually enjoy seeing a lot of cross-talk and encourage it, even in large groups - until I decide enough's enough and then just pick out whoever seems to most have their shit together.

Pretty arbitrary, but it works for me.

Quote from: Saplatt;862021I actually enjoy seeing a lot of cross-talk and encourage it, even in large groups - until I decide enough's enough and then just pick out whoever seems to most have their shit together.

Pretty arbitrary, but it works for me.

I don't mind crosstalk, except when it's time to declare actions.

Quote from: Saplatt;862021I actually enjoy seeing a lot of cross-talk and encourage it, even in large groups - until I decide enough's enough and then just pick out whoever seems to most have their shit together.

Pretty arbitrary, but it works for me.

The problem is that one player usually ends up just talking over everyone and taking over the discussion, at which point the others don't bother trying to cut in because that player pretty much has everything handled. Then that player basically controls all the other characters.

Or someone will try to RP and say something, but since they get cut off or talked over everybody misses what they said and then they don't bother trying to say it again.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;862235The problem is that one player usually ends up just talking over everyone and taking over the discussion, at which point the others don't bother trying to cut in because that player pretty much has everything handled. Then that player basically controls all the other characters.

Or someone will try to RP and say something, but since they get cut off or talked over everybody misses what they said and then they don't bother trying to say it again.

"Everybody shut the fuck up except him!"