I'm not sure I'm a very good player. When my wife sees me playing, as opposed to GMing, she always says the same thing. "You look really bored. You just sit at the table staring at your papers."
What she means is that during the long pauses in combat, I'm not sure what to do do with myself. When we play D&D 4e, each player can wait up 10-15 minutes for their turn. When it's not their turn, there's nothing to do. You watch the other players, see what happens, wait for people to look their rules up, and so on.
It's just so slow. During an hour long battle there might be 10 minutes of activity for a single player and up to 50 of just...waiting.
Now mix in four combats and you literally have hours - HOURS - of down time.
Are there any systems where there's not so much waiting? What can be done in game to engage as many people as possible?
I'm getting to the point where I'd rather go see a movie with my gaming group than play because it's such a slow form of entertainment.
Certainly there are quicker systems out there. But really it comes down to the GMing. I and a friend both ran GURPS campaigns for a while. His group of 5 had a combat with 12 gargoyles, the 18 combat rounds (18 seconds in GURPS) took 2.5 sessions (4hr sessions once a fortnight) to resolve. My group of 4 had a battle deciding the fate of the entire Roman republic and it took 30 minutes.
Why the difference? The GMing. My friend offered them all the options, looked up the rules for all the possibilities, each and every one of them. I just said, "what do you do?" decided which skill applied, and assigned an arbitrary bonus/malus to it.
I think D&D4e is a dreadful system, but I'm sure there are plenty of GMs who run it smoothly and quickly. Likewise, there are GMs who could make a Risus combat last all night.
If people are going to run a RPG witha lot of tactic details they need a referee who knows it cold to make it run smooth.
What I would do it look at what slows down the turn. If it turns out to be looking up stuff then see if you can get cheat sheets printed out. Or talk to each players that are not currently doing anything about what they are going to do and have the rules indexed and ready to go. In short act as an assistant to keep the game flowing.
It would help to know what system you are playing.
Of course the alternative is to play a more abstract system like an older edition of D&D.
I recommend picking up an earlier edition (pre-3e) of D&D or one of the retro-clones. They run much faster. Entire combats usually only last 10 minutes.
estar - He said he's in a 4e game. While that is faster than 3e, it's still really slow.
If you're trying to stay within the confines of 4e, imposing a time limit so that tactical creep doesn't show up (plotting out 1 hour for 6 seconds' of game time), is one basic item that could work.
There are a number of systems with significantly faster play. I guess it depends how far your group is willing to go from 4e. I know you've heard of the retro-clones, but games such as Castles & Crusades mix older versions with d20, which I've found to be a nice meeting ground.
Other people have luck with more cinematic systems; I'm certainly enjoying Mini Six just now, which is nice and free (print is $8). Other recommendations people often put forth for cinematic games are for Savage Worlds, Cortex, etc. Alternately, companies such as Precis Intermedia and Rogue Games have a range of fast-playing, tweakable games.
I guess it would help to know what you (and your gaming group) are after.
Hey, this is not an uncommon issue. Best of luck to you with it, though!
You all seem to be confirming what I feel and what I know needs to be done. I need to talk to my group and explain the rules-heavy system just won't work for me anymore. We've got to keep it fast, light and pull everyone in.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;418930Certainly there are quicker systems out there. But really it comes down to the GMing.
Absolutely, but not only. It comes down to what you decide to care about as a player as well. If you only care about what your character's doing when he's doing it, then yes, you're going to have some boring downtime. If you actually care about what's going on in the game, what the other players are doing, how the GM describes the action, who rolls what, when and how terrible/awesome that is, if you've got a group synergy, then it's not downtime anymore. It's part of the game.
Quote from: Christian;418937You all seem to be confirming what I feel and what I know needs to be done. I need to talk to my group and explain the rules-heavy system just won't work for me anymore. We've got to keep it fast, light and pull everyone in.
I hear you. I've found that while I still love heavier games such as Rolemaster, when I only have 4 hours to play every other weekend, I aim for lighter systems and more disciplined time management in combat.
That synergy is key and I think it's something we need to work on. I've been kicking around the idea of a system/setting/genre that focuses on teamwork rather than each player at the table having their own, isolated experience.
Zach: Totally. Time is precious and the game needs to pop.
Quote from: Christian;418942That synergy is key and I think it's something we need to work on. I've been kicking around the idea of a system/setting/genre that focuses on teamwork rather than each player at the table having their own, isolated experience.
That might help, indeed. Bottom line, it's in the players and GM heads that it is going on and where it needs to be solved. If some game rule just allows people to say "hey, I can care about what other players do too!" that's great, but that's really a problem of people and their priorities in the first place. *nod*
So, Christian, do you have any other systems you've been considering for the role? I understand it needs to be a group thing, but it doesn't hurt to have some candidates.
One thing you can do with 4e is rely on skill challenges to "abstract" combats that you don't think need to be played out blow-by-blow. It's not exactly by-the-book, but it leverages people's familiarity with the system and their comfort level with characters so that you don't have to port over to a whole new system.
I'm thinking specifically of a system where you do something like this: the GM says, "Okay, you're fighting your way through these guards to get to the temple; you're tough enough to get there, the thing I'm not sure about is how beat up you get en route."
So you set the EL of the challenge, and the DC for the player's skill rolls (which will really be attack rolls in most cases) is something like 15 + EL. Roll initiative for the PCs. Roll in initiative order. Make the roll and you've contributed to the success of the skill challenge, blow it and you either need to expend a healing surge or allow the GM to impose a condition on you. Expending your daily power gives you a big bonus of some kind, and action points can negate a failure.
The GM keeps track of failures versus successes, and you get experience points equal to the percentage of successes over total rolls times the XP of an encounter of the appropriate level.
It's not a perfect fix, but it may enable you to avoid playing out every single combat so that you can focus on the interesting ones.
Quote from: Zachary The First;418948So, Christian, do you have any other systems you've been considering for the role? I understand it needs to be a group thing, but it doesn't hurt to have some candidates.
Several of us dig the World of Darkness. One thing I like about the Storyteller system is that it's fairly easy to keep things moving. So that's a possibility.
It might even be nice to do a few one-shots. I am terribly curious about Monsters and Other Childish Things AND ICONS. It could be fun to even revisit old faves like Twilight 2000 and Star Frontiers.
Mostly, we need a game that keeps everyone involved and interested. It really bums me out to see people tuned out for long periods of time.
Quote from: Christian;418929I'm not sure I'm a very good player. When my wife sees me playing, as opposed to GMing, she always says the same thing. "You look really bored. You just sit at the table staring at your papers."
What she means is that during the long pauses in combat, I'm not sure what to do do with myself. When we play D&D 4e, each player can wait up 10-15 minutes for their turn. When it's not their turn, there's nothing to do. You watch the other players, see what happens, wait for people to look their rules up, and so on.
It's just so slow. During an hour long battle there might be 10 minutes of activity for a single player and up to 50 of just...waiting.
Now mix in four combats and you literally have hours - HOURS - of down time.
Are there any systems where there's not so much waiting? What can be done in game to engage as many people as possible?
I'm getting to the point where I'd rather go see a movie with my gaming group than play because it's such a slow form of entertainment.
Maybe you need fewer combats . . . (and possibly a smaller group :mad:)
Quote from: Christian;418955*snip*
Mostly, we need a game that keeps everyone involved and interested. It really bums me out to see people tuned out for long periods of time.
I feel your pain ;)
I take issue with this aspect of many games. Some good suggestions in the thread.
Perhaps players could handle the NPC opponents (esp. "mooks") of other players when combat erupts, thereby keeping folk more engaged?
Check out MRQ2 (and Vikings supplement!) if you are looking for a combat system that is quick, lethal and loads of fun with that "old school" feel.
cheers !
:)
Oh yeah. MRQ2 is awesome alright. :)
I could not agree more. Games with hour-long combats scenes are boring, boring, boring. I can whip up some enthusiasm for the first few rounds, but after that the "moment", the rush and whatever makes a game immeresive is squashed under the weight of rounds and rounds of raw mechanics. And as you say, the downtime between turns is just insane. I really don't want to play that kind of game ever again.
The good news is that there are plenty of game, old and new, that don't play that way.
I don't play 4E, so I don't know if it is the system or the group, but 10-15 minutes waiting for you turn seems a little long to me. I would probably get bored as well. When I GM I try to keep everyone moving in combat so you don't have long pauses while one player figures out what he is going to do.
I once played for a GM who would give players maybe ten seconds or so to make a decision and then start counting down from ten. If they didn't act in that time, they lost their turn. The characters certainly don't have infinite amounts of time to decide Just the Right Move, why should players?
Also, rules questions got adjudicated on the spot and looked up afterward. Stopping to thumb through books during gameplay is a huge drag for everyone.
I've been in your position though, OP, and it sucks.
I'm getting to the point where any combat over 20-30 min is too long.
I ran the final session of my group's 3e all wizard campaign last night, and the final battle took about two hours for 3 rounds of combat. All tension and excitement were drained before the first round was even over. An epic battle between world shaking wizards and their extraplanar allies shouldn't have players yawning or spending 15 minutes looking up one spell.
Alot has to do with prep time in my opinion. Players should look up their options beforehand, and DMs should make notes about creatures/npcs under their control. After last night I'm resolved to never run D&D 3e above level 7 or so. I'll stick to other systems for my world spanning, epic level wizard games.
I read this thread and it illustrates why I have been moving towards more rules-light systems, like choosing Labyrinth Lord over Pathfinder for faster play that attracts more casual gamers.
Like so many others in this thread, I'm not sure if my enjoyment of a game increases with the page count of the rulebook.
Today I'm going down to the FLGS to see if I can find something fast and fun.
Wish me luck!
:)
Quote from: Christian;419060Like so many others in this thread, I'm not sure if my enjoyment of a game increases with the page count of the rulebook.
Today I'm going down to the FLGS to see if I can find something fast and fun.
Wish me luck!
:)
Good luck! If you don't find it there, remember there's a metric ton of freelancers and small-press RPG publishers around these parts. If you have a laundry list of what you're after, I'm betting someone's made something that'll fit. :)
I think it has a lot more to do with players than anything. Specifically, clueless players.
Sure, taking forever to decide things in combat is bad. But what about these other time wasters?:
* Players who insist on continuing to haggle because they are too thick to realize they already got the best offer.
* Players who spend hours arguing over how to divide/store their fake money that they never spend on anything anyhow.
* Players who spend forever describing minute details of their actions because they had a Gygaxian "gotcha" moment sometime in their past and fear it happening ever again.
* Players who ask the same questions of every NPC in town because they refuse to accept the answers they already got.
* Players who argue over every little tiny rule, looking for loopholes, because they somehow forget the GM can always cheat better than they can.
Of course, it's not just players:
* GMs who refuse to arbitrate decisions and instead spend hours looking for rules that may not even exist.
* GMs who don't do any session preparation and spend half the session looking stuff up in books (one guy here's interpretation of GM "on the fly" means that once an encounter starts, he literally stops the game for 20+ minutes to look at monster stats and decide what the encounter actually is)
Good luck with your shopping trip!
I am completely confused by 10 minute player turns for 4e.
I play 4e and even did 4e demos for total noobs and I never had a situation where anyone's turn ever took more than minute or two. The GM's turn is longer if the field is full of monsters.
Now, it may be the book flipping. I saw LOTS of 10 minute turns in 3e with groups that constantly had to check the book for the same feat they have been using for three years. 4e made this easier with power cards and I only GM groups who have everything they need spell out on their character sheet.
As a GM, I pretty much outlaw books at the table.
You aren't going to find many fast play RPGs in your game store. Instead, your best bet are the FREE retro-clones. My suggestions would be...
MAZES & MINOTAURS
http://storygame.free.fr/MAZES.htm
SWORDS & WIZARDRY
http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/
LABYRINTH LORD
http://www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.html
MUTANT FUTURE
http://www.goblinoidgames.com/mutantfuture.html
But there is a catch with these Old School RPGs. There is very little mechanical character customization compared to 3e/4e. Also, the Old School systems have LOTS of idosyncracies that appeal to nostalgic old folks and may not fly with people who don't yearn for their teenage years.
I also suggest looking at Warrior, Rogue & Mage. It's FREE. It's a very fast play, easy system that is built for people who love lots of customized characters. It also has 5 free mini-supplements too.
WARRIOR, ROGUE & MAGE
http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=82643
I'm pretty sure Christian is well versed in the old school games that exist. I've read his blog.
I think anyone who spends much longer than a minute on a turn in 4e is probably just wasting their time. The rules don't reward precision maneuvers so much as just plain action. ie- when in doubt, just get in and just hit something.
It's common for new players to want to chess match out a bunch of stuff and sit there staring at the battlemat for a while. Anytime I see that I usually just have them roll a dice. If it's below a 10, it probably didn't matter what they were planning.
Another DM tactic to speed things is just wait 30 seconds and if they can't decide, just call it a delay to the next person in line. And if they still can't decide when their next turn comes up, they just delay again. (This works equally well in 3E or any game with cyclical init, by the way)
On the other side of the screen: different tips:
1) DMs also need to have their stuff down, and it helps if there are more than one expert at the table that can also help out. Also know when to go off the rulebook. If you can't explain a flank, a charge, or know if dazing grants combat advantage..you need to know that. But if it's a really esoteric question ("does falling provoke attacks of opportunity?") feel free to make it up.
Don't be stupid with encounter design. if you choose monsters that have (in combination) insubstantial and resistance and regeneration and ongoing damage? That long combat is your own fault. Don't screw yourself.!
Use quests to make up a portion of the XP budget. That leaves fewer Xp for monsters. And fewer Xp for monsters means a quicker battle. It's OK to go UNDER budget, no matter how many blogs advise you to go over the XP budget "for the challenge". "For the challenge" just means "to make it a longer combat".
Consider using a larger number of lower level monsters. Like- if the party is a group of 4 5th level PCs - that's a budget of 4 5th level monsters (800 xp), normally. But instead you can use 5 2nd level monsters, plus 7 1st level minions. They'll get mowed down quickly, but not before doing some damage. In 3e this would have been called a 'bleeder' encounter.
Write the adventures such that the encounters are all avoidable, let the players choose which battles they are going to get into.
memorize the XP budget rules and Learn how to improvise an encounter out of a stack of monster printouts.
alternately: set it up so that you only have one or two possible combats.
Finally- here's one thing I advocate that nobody seems to like until they try it- don't allow any rulebooks at the table. I haven't brought a 4e rulebook to the table since 2008.
Abyssal is VERY correct on designing encounters. Not all special abilities are equal and some can drag on combats. Minions are your friend.
And there is the BEST rule for speeding up 4e combat: just cut all monster HP in half and add 1W to their damage. Now you got yourself paper tigers and combat is scary, brutal and fast.
This has become my default method.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;419088Finally- here's one thing I advocate that nobody seems to like until they try it- don't allow any rulebooks at the table. I haven't brought a 4e rulebook to the table since 2008.
Absolutely. No books at the table. Regardless of RPG.
Been doing that since high school with AD&D 1e to shut up the rules whiners. Contrary to many OSR faithful, AD&D wasn't the land of kumbaya players who only focused on the game and not the rules. My "no books at the table" rule was born from dealing with Gygaxian ass nuggets.
And if the GM isn't sure of a rule, fudge on the side of the PCs. Never saw a player complain about that. Even the all-knowing rules bitches become mysteriously silent.
1 new game that plays fast and can be found at the lgs is Barbarians of Lemuria.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;419088It's common for new players to want to chess match out a bunch of stuff and sit there staring at the battlemat for a while. Anytime I see that I usually just have them roll a dice. If it's below a 10, it probably didn't matter what they were planning.
This I love.
QuoteFinally- here's one thing I advocate that nobody seems to like until they try it- don't allow any rulebooks at the table. I haven't brought a 4e rulebook to the table since 2008.
I agree with this. I run games at cons a lot, and so time is critical. My attitude is that if I have to open the book during play I've failed.
Quote from: Benoist;418939It comes down to what you decide to care about as a player as well. If you only care about what your character's doing when he's doing it, then yes, you're going to have some boring downtime.
Sure, but that's the GMing, too. It's easy for the GM to say that the player has just one minute (or whatever) to state what they're going to do and roll for it.
At one game club I saw some people playing
World in Flames with all optional rules. Each player wandered around chatting until it was time for their turn, then and only then did they start planning their actions. As a result, each session covered 1.5 turns, I calculated if the game war lasted as long as the real one, it'd take them 18 months to finish. This was the behaviour you describe, but the game has no GM to keep things moving.
Of course D&D4e does suck immensely and playing it makes you feel like you're stuck in toffee, only without the sweetness. Still, it does come down to the GMing. One of the GM's jobs is to keep things moving.
"Anna, what do you do?"
"Um, pass me that rulebook..."
"Okay, you D&D - you spend the round dithering and ducking."
"But -"
"Bob, what do you do?"
Quote from: Insufficient MetalThe characters certainly don't have infinite amounts of time to decide Just the Right Move, why should players?
There is an argument for giving players more time to decide than their characters have. Their characters have greater tactical knowledge because they have the character class, skills or whatever's relevant. That greater tactical knowledge can be reflected by having a bit longer to think about what they do.
So for example in GURPS with its one second combat rounds, it'd be a bit harsh to give a player only one second to decide things. But thirty seconds should be heaps, doesn't have to be ten minutes of paging through books.
Quote from: jgantsSure, taking forever to decide things in combat is bad. But what about these other time wasters?
Those are indeed a problem. Again it comes down to the GMing. Thus the famous saying,
"Shut the fuck up and roll the dice."
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;419088It's common for new players to want to chess match out a bunch of stuff and sit there staring at the battlemat for a while. Anytime I see that I usually just have them roll a dice. If it's below a 10, it probably didn't matter what they were planning.
Quote from: Bill White;419149This I love.
Wha...?
I don't actually disagree with anything else in AM's post, but this one threw me a little...it looks very ripe for abuse.
"Whee, 20! I use my daily!"
"OK that was a 1...I cast magic missile".
However, I do encourage PCs to roll if this avoids me having to look a modifier somewhere, that a very good/bad roll would make irrelevant.
But, your house your rules. Carry on.
Quote from: Christian;418955Several of us dig the World of Darkness. One thing I like about the Storyteller system is that it's fairly easy to keep things moving. So that's a possibility.
It might even be nice to do a few one-shots. I am terribly curious about Monsters and Other Childish Things AND ICONS. It could be fun to even revisit old faves like Twilight 2000 and Star Frontiers.
Mostly, we need a game that keeps everyone involved and interested. It really bums me out to see people tuned out for long periods of time.
While I haven't had a chance to play Labyrinth Lord, it's on my radar for the same reasons others have brought it up in this thread.
The more I read about what you're describing in your posts here, the more I want to suggest Houses of the Blooded. Read the demo and let me know what you think about the Mass Murder mechanic (which is what the combat system is called). Here's a link to the demo PDF: http://www.housesoftheblooded.net/downloads.html
I'll echo whats been said about how the game is run. IMO the best GM's are those that know when a roll will fit into the moment, or when for the flow of the story, its time to hand-wave or resolve the moment with a quick, simple and easy alternative. Narrators that can play beyond the books....
Quote from: danbuter;418935estar - He said he's in a 4e game. While that is faster than 3e, it's still really slow.
Uhm, I play 3E and I have no problems with combats' speed. And my players (four) pay attention when it is not their turn because what happens in other players' turns is A) fun to watch and B) makes you think what to do when it's your turn again.
I must say that, in my games, the "d20 + skill vs. DC rule" ruleZ. Special cases are applied in special occasions, and that's it.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;419179Sure, but that's the GMing, too. It's easy for the GM to say that the player has just one minute (or whatever) to state what they're going to do and roll for it.
Exactly. It's so obvious, it hurts the eyes. When it's a player's turn I expect for him to state what he does up stat (OK, maybe after asking for some clarifications). This means that he has to pay attention and pre-plan during other players' turns. In combat you *must* think in advance, or you fall out of the decision circle - no matter if you lead an army or your body.
When I play, I feel embarassed when I don't know what to do in my turn. When it happens, I would "DM myself" into stating that I have combat paralysis for that turn.
Quote from: Christian;419060Like so many others in this thread, I'm not sure if my enjoyment of a game increases with the page count of the rulebook.
Today I'm going down to the FLGS to see if I can find something fast and fun.
Wish me luck!
:)
I wish you luck.
Many good suggestions around. I usually give people 10 seconds to decide despite the system we're using. As these days I'm using BRP games, it's plenty of time. With more rules-intensive games I could see using 30" per player.
Quote from: Spinachcat;419068I am completely confused by 10 minute player turns for 4e.
Me too. I haven't had a lot of experiences with 4e, but at least at the first level play is quite smooth.
QuoteYou aren't going to find many fast play RPGs in your game store. Instead, your best bet are the FREE retro-clones. My suggestions would be...
MAZES & MINOTAURS
http://storygame.free.fr/MAZES.htm
SWORDS & WIZARDRY
http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/
LABYRINTH LORD
http://www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.html
MUTANT FUTURE
http://www.goblinoidgames.com/mutantfuture.html
WARRIOR, ROGUE & MAGE
http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=82643
Great suggestions, all around.
And I like the "no books at the table" rule. I think it forces you to really master the game. I'm going to try it when prepping this Friday's Cthulhu game.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;419088I think anyone who spends much longer than a minute on a turn in 4e is probably just wasting their time.
I think that this is true for 4E in a general sense.
Quote from: Imperator;419275Me too. I haven't had a lot of experiences with 4e, but at least at the first level play is quite smooth.
I play with, depending on how you look at it, three or four different 4e groups. How long it takes is highly player dependent. It does increase as you add levels, but the primary factor in how long a player takes is said player.
Seanchai
Quote from: Imperator;419275And I like the "no books at the table" rule. I think it forces you to really master the game. I'm going to try it when prepping this Friday's Cthulhu game.
I like the no books at the table idea but "game mastery" is irritating as hell.
A game should be fun to play. Not every player enjoys spending all available free time outside the game reading rules, options, tactics and stuff.
I read a lot of game material because I GM a whole lot. When it comes to games that I play but don't really run then I don't spend much time on them outside the game. I don't start looking through rulebooks either.
The whole game mastery thing can be a real drag when adventures are being run that assume all characters created for it will be tweaked and optimized out the ass and perfect tactics based on rules knowledge will be implemented at all times. I played in a couple 3E one shot games that kind of felt like this and it reminded me of the WOW dungeon runs mentality which gets old and boring real fast.
Simple mechanics are great. Those who want to master the game can do so and casual players can still play and have fun without feeling like they should have spent all week memorizing information from over a dozen rulebooks.
Best starter set?
It came out about 30 years ago. The Moldvay Basic D&D set with the kickass Erol Otus cover and the Marsh/Cook Expert set that followed it. Everything needed for play in one 64 page softcover book.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;419320I like the no books at the table idea but "game mastery" is irritating as hell.
A game should be fun to play. Not every player enjoys spending all available free time outside the game reading rules, options, tactics and stuff.
I read a lot of game material because I GM a whole lot. When it comes to games that I play but don't really run then I don't spend much time on them outside the game. I don't start looking through rulebooks either.
The whole game mastery thing can be a real drag when adventures are being run that assume all characters created for it will be tweaked and optimized out the ass and perfect tactics based on rules knowledge will be implemented at all times. I played in a couple 3E one shot games that kind of felt like this and it reminded me of the WOW dungeon runs mentality which gets old and boring real fast.
Simple mechanics are great. Those who want to master the game can do so and casual players can still play and have fun without feeling like they should have spent all week memorizing information from over a dozen rulebooks.
Best starter set?
It came out about 30 years ago. The Moldvay Basic D&D set with the kickass Erol Otus cover and the Marsh/Cook Expert set that followed it. Everything needed for play in one 64 page softcover book.
I really don't think players should spend much time optimizing, and the rules aren't that big of a deal- knowing what constitutes flanking, grants combat advantage, and provokes an attack of opportunity is usually enough.
Here's what too many DMs do:
DM: "Ok, the zombie lurches over here to attack.." (starts to shift zombie..)
Player (playing fighter) "I got him marked! Awesome.. I take a free hit..!"
DM: "oh, wait.. I guess if you have him marked I will move over there instead.... or ..hmm.. I guess I could..attack you instead.."
(DM starts re-taking his move and really thinking about it)
This is just a waste of time. Let the mark go off, let the player make the free attack and drive on. Players do the same thing, but when Dms do it, it's unforgivable. It's really ok to play a stupid zombie like it's a stupid zombie. Heck it's ok to make tactical errors. It's not ok to make everyone wait.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;419327Here's what too many DMs do:
DM: "Ok, the zombie lurches over here to attack.." (starts to shift zombie..)
Player (playing fighter) "I got him marked! Awesome.. I take a free hit..!"
DM: "oh, wait.. I guess if you have him marked I will move over there instead.... or ..hmm.. I guess I could..attack you instead.."
(DM starts re-taking his move and really thinking about it)
DM receives a bitch slap for 5-50 points of damage and the player leaves to find a more exciting game.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;419327This is just a waste of time. Let the mark go off, let the player make the free attack and drive on. Players do the same thing, but when Dms do it, it's unforgivable. It's really ok to play a stupid zombie like it's a stupid zombie. Heck it's ok to make tactical errors. It's not ok to make everyone wait.
This is why I prefer systems that are less "chessboard grid" focused. 3E and 4E have inspired an intense dislike of turn based initiative. You want players to stay focused and operate as a team? The best way to do that is with good old side based initiative and let them coordinate and actually work together as a team. Party wins initiative and gets to decide who will do what first. Individual turns just encourage those waiting to zone out until it's time to do something. Actually getting to coordinate activity with the rest of party so that every member can act together maintains focus on the party as a group instead of everyone being fixated on their own little slice of ME time.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;419339. Individual turns just encourage those waiting to zone out until it's time to do something. Actually getting to coordinate activity with the rest of party so that every member can act together maintains focus on the party as a group instead of everyone being fixated on their own little slice of ME time.
You might be on to something with that.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;419339You want players to stay focused and operate as a team? The best way to do that is with good old side based initiative and let them coordinate and actually work together as a team. Party wins initiative and gets to decide who will do what first. Individual turns just encourage those waiting to zone out until it's time to do something. Actually getting to coordinate activity with the rest of party so that every member can act together maintains focus on the party as a group instead of everyone being fixated on their own little slice of ME time.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;419346You might be on to something with that.
In my experience this works out well. I have seen good results in Basic D&D style play with a compromise between the two, where each side uses the same roll, but dexterity can modify the initiative, but generally the modifier is only a point or two either way and doesn't come up every time. In 3/4e it would probably be messier, but it would be interesting to try it and see how it worked out.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;419346You might be on to something with that.
Yes, really really. It's really about group dynamics, whether you are staring at your own dice and not giving a shit what other players are doing, and otherwise.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;419320I like the no books at the table idea but "game mastery" is irritating as hell.
A game should be fun to play. Not every player enjoys spending all available free time outside the game reading rules, options, tactics and stuff.
Well, I was meaning that only as athing I could do as GM. See, I'm lucky enough to have (most of the time) lots of free time available, as I am a psychotherapist and HR consultant, and pretty good managing my time. I have the occasional fuckton of work with long hours, but that's seldom happening.
So I can really spend time re-reading books, making notes and mastering the rules, so I can leave the book behind when I GM. Specially as I am running BRP games, with a system I know by heart.
Also, the best starter set for me is the Mentzer Red Box. Different tastes, I guess.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;419339You want players to stay focused and operate as a team? The best way to do that is with good old side based initiative and let them coordinate and actually work together as a team. Party wins initiative and gets to decide who will do what first. Individual turns just encourage those waiting to zone out until it's time to do something. Actually getting to coordinate activity with the rest of party so that every member can act together maintains focus on the party as a group instead of everyone being fixated on their own little slice of ME time.
You are definitely right. Now, let's get something useful from these idea.
Let's say I'm running a CoC game (which I am). Initiative goes in order of DEX, so I usually count down from highest to lowest, and when it's someone's turn they declare and act. Pretty fast and smooth.
How would we implement a similar system in CoC? I'm really into people avoiding to zone out during combat.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;419339Individual turns just encourage those waiting to zone out until it's time to do something. Actually getting to coordinate activity with the rest of party so that every member can act together maintains focus on the party as a group instead of everyone being fixated on their own little slice of ME time.
You address an important issue here. I'm seriously starting to consider adopting group initiative for my games. It would probably speed things up a bit, and be better for the "teamwork" aspect of the game. It's something to think about...
Quote from: Imperator;419361Let's say I'm running a CoC game (which I am). Initiative goes in order of DEX, so I usually count down from highest to lowest, and when it's someone's turn they declare and act. Pretty fast and smooth.
How would we implement a similar system in CoC? I'm really into people avoiding to zone out during combat.
Initiative system reworking can be tricky in systems that feature high stats or other character building resources as having a large impact on who can act when.
In this case if we simply have each "side" roll a d10 each round then we have negated part of the value of having a high DEX in the system.
What would be needed for group initiative to work here is a way for DEX to still influence initiative.
IIRC CoC uses percentile values for stats (it's been a while).
Determine the highest DEX score for each side in the conflict by finding the member of each team with the best score.
Have each team roll a d10 and add +1 for each full 10 points of DEX that the fastest member of the team has.
A team of investigators including one member with a 75 DEX is engaged with a group of cultists whose fastest member has a 56 DEX. Each team rolls a d10. The investigators add 7 to their roll and the cultists add 5. Highest roll wins initiative for their team.
This gets re-rolled each round. It also adds to the excitement by not having a fixed order. Turn based action can become so predictable once the order is established that it becomes a snoozefest of repetition even if the turns move quickly.
Player's internal monologue:
OK so Jack is going to shoot the big guy, then Pam's gonna throw a knife at the high priest. Then it's the machete guy's turn. Then I get to go............zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Christian: perhaps you should check out Hackmaster Basic from Kenzer and Company. Combat counts up from 0. Once your Initiative comes, from then on you can move every single count 5'. So each combat round everyone at the table is moving their models, reacting to one anothers' actions and reactions, setting up for combat synergy against monsters, etc. And combat is very quick in HM5e (unlike Hackmaster 4th edition, which was just an AD&D clone).
-=Grim=-
Although I have to say- if you aren't doing teamwork in 4e, you are probably extremely new to 4e, and slowing everyone down to boot. Strikers are the only ones who don't really augment other PCs, but they can't stand up for long without either a defender or controller shaping the battle or a leader keeping them healed.
Quote from: GrimJesta;419464Christian: perhaps you should check out Hackmaster Basic from Kenzer and Company. Combat counts up from 0. Once your Initiative comes, from then on you can move every single count 5'. So each combat round everyone at the table is moving their models, reacting to one anothers' actions and reactions, setting up for combat synergy against monsters, etc. And combat is very quick in HM5e (unlike Hackmaster 4th edition, which was just an AD&D clone).
-=Grim=-
What keeps this system going fast in practice? It doesn't
sound any faster than any other miniatures based combat, and arguably slower due to the incremental movement. But that's just from a very general description :)
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;419515Although I have to say- if you aren't doing teamwork in 4e, you are probably extremely new to 4e, and slowing everyone down to boot. Strikers are the only ones who don't really augment other PCs, but they can't stand up for long without either a defender or controller shaping the battle or a leader keeping them healed.
In 4e I haven't seen the problem as lack of teamwork so much as the particular application of the team dynamic slowing play - I know you've said before that the best way to roll is "just take an action, just do it" but in my experience (obviously, much less than your own) a lot of time is dedicated to selecting your action with an eye toward "setting things up" for the other players" which isn't always fast, but is generally pretty rewarding in terms of combat success. And depending on who you're playing with, each character often gets (and may actually
want) four other players' input on team tactics.
I'm not saying this is
necessarily bad, I'm just saying that the thread has been addressing at least two element of combat "drag," turn slowdown and turn zone-out, and while they often go hand in hand, they don't always - i.e. in 4e I've seen a lot of slowdown and not much zone-out, whereas, for example, late 3.5 I saw a lot more zone-out relative to the slowdown.
I run a very fast-paced D&D Encounters table (one of two for Keep ont he Borderlands.. not sure how the other DM is running his because we have two rooms).
Last week had new players, (who both said they had been playing since it came out..) -- two of the other players are 12 years old, one other guy is a bus driver who literally (I swear to god) cannot add 2d6 together*, and one other player is a longtime rules expert type guy who has one of those really impressive commands of the rules.
So there we are we are zipping along, and the combat involves going down into this trapped tomb thing. My 12 year olds are fine, my math-challenged guy is great, my rules-guy is fine, one of my new guys is trucking along.. and then it got to my other new guy. He was playing a hexblade warlock. It got to his turn- total shut down..he's reading his character sheet, trying to figure out which power works best, paging through the book he just bought..
After about 30 seconds I just said "pretend there's no rules. What do you want to do?"
And he said "well, I want to go up and attack this construct here.." (and he points out the nearest one.
"from range or with your sword?"
He chose sword, and we just pointed out the two choices he had for doing that, and he was fine the rest of the combat once he understood that either way was cool.
Part of it is- you don't want to look like a noob, and you think "here are these guys playing a game, I need to show that I'm doing the right move..".. but I say, it doesn't matter. In D&D, there just aren't any mistakes that are not worth making at least once.
* Ok, it's true about this guy, but I want to say, one of my favorite players ever, because he's very good-natured about it. Ironically, he plays an eladrin wizard.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;419534After about 30 seconds I just said "pretend there's no rules. What do you want to do?"
And he said "well, I want to go up and attack this construct here.." (and he points out the nearest one.
"from range or with your sword?"
He chose sword, and we just pointed out the two choices he had for doing that, and he was fine the rest of the combat once he understood that either way was cool.
Yeah, people need to just stop sweating the small stuff. Especially with a nitpicky game system. First you indeed try to prove yourself as a "good player" (whatever that's supposed to mean), and then that becomes a habit, other players start to mimick it, and it becomes a huge problem at the game table. The solution is to just not start to begin with, or to just give a break and make people realize that hey, they don't have to sweat the small stuff.
It's like using minis in an RPG. It's all in the way you look at it.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;419377IIRC CoC uses percentile values for stats (it's been a while).
Determine the highest DEX score for each side in the conflict by finding the member of each team with the best score.
Actually, CoC stats are 3-18, but you can use a d100 if you multiply them by 5. Then you can make opposed rolls, using UA mechanics.
So, group of PCs (best DEX 17) against bunch of cultists (best DX 13). So PCs have INI 85% and the baddies 65%. So both roll, PCs get 74 and baddies 83, so PCs first.
Next turn they roll 40 and 59, each. So the cultists get the highest successfull roll, they go first.
It could work...
Or to save doing the multiplication, you could just use the resistance table. Usually Power vs Power, but in RQ it was also STR vs STR for arm wrestles, etc.
For example in my current campaign it's been used when a giant snake appeared in a doorway and went "hssssss" at a PC (POW vs POW, he failed and panicked), when a falling block trap was discovered and set off and they wanted to move the stone out of the way (STR12 vs SIZ20, critical success, so he was able to just casually toss the stone wherever he wanted), and so on.
If you do want to roll percentile vs percentile, then rather than DEX I'd use the primary weapon skills of the combatants. Part of learning to fight is learning to move first and quickly. However, that's only in the situation where two parties stumble into each-other. Hopefully at least one side is smart enough to have prepared an attack, so there's no initiative - it's an ambush.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;420008Or to save doing the multiplication, you could just use the resistance table. Usually Power vs Power, but in RQ it was also STR vs STR for arm wrestles, etc.
For example in my current campaign it's been used when a giant snake appeared in a doorway and went "hssssss" at a PC (POW vs POW, he failed and panicked), when a falling block trap was discovered and set off and they wanted to move the stone out of the way (STR12 vs SIZ20, critical success, so he was able to just casually toss the stone wherever he wanted), and so on.
If you do want to roll percentile vs percentile, then rather than DEX I'd use the primary weapon skills of the combatants. Part of learning to fight is learning to move first and quickly. However, that's only in the situation where two parties stumble into each-other. Hopefully at least one side is smart enough to have prepared an attack, so there's no initiative - it's an ambush.
That definitely could be a solution, and also would involve only one roll, on behalf of the PCs, and saves me the roll. Thanks! :)