"You have ten seconds to make your decision..."

[LibraryOgre]

On the other hand, while making snap decisions isn't fun for some people (completely understandable), consider being on the other side of the table, with the person who simply WILL. NOT. MAKE. UP. THEIR. MIND. They've had the entire round since their last action to think about what they're going to do. But every time it's their turn, they either have to be torn away from their phone, or will simply sit there, paralyzed by indecision, holding up the entire game (i.e. making things less fun) because they won't commit to an action.

I can understand not liking snap decisions, but the GM (and the player) have to consider everyone else's fun, too.

[Narren]

You're deliberately trying to stress people out?

Hell, why not give them a random amount of time? Why not shout at them while they're trying to think? Let off firecrackers? Change the game rules without telling them?

Stressing people out on purpose is a bad thing to do when you're trying to play a fun game.

A little bit of stress can add to the enjoyment for many people.

If you run with the argument of "don't stress the players" then we need to abolish hit points, because the chance of death can stress out players. Actually, you may want to just ditch the dice so that there's never a chance of failure. That's taking it to the extreme, but so is throwing firecrackers at them.

[Amphetryon]

A little bit of stress can add to the enjoyment for many people.

If you run with the argument of "don't stress the players" then we need to abolish hit points, because the chance of death can stress out players. Actually, you may want to just ditch the dice so that there's never a chance of failure. That's taking it to the extreme, but so is throwing firecrackers at them.

That's a lovely strawman argument, I must say. There's a significant difference between agreeing to sit down to play the game with the rules you can find in the actual book/SRD, and agreeing to sit down to the game, only to find that there are additional time pressures - indicated nowhere that I can find in the rulebooks or SRD - imposed on the players.

A closer analogy to the HP vs. time constraint issue, from my perspective, would be finding that the GM is planning to hit you on the head with a Nerf bat every time your character gets hit in combat - swinging harder or softer depending on how much damage was rolled - in order to 'simulate the stressful environment of an actual combat.' At a certain point, you're LARPing, not playing an RPG.

[Narren]

Comparing RPGs to Taboo is not fair (and ridiculous), unless you consider RPGs to be competitive games.

And deliberately stressing someone out, against their consent (the only option the OP has been giving to posters who say they wouldn't enjoy it is to say he'd kick them from the game!), for your own enjoyment? Yes, that's bullying.

While I don't use a timer (though if a player starts thinking about their actions for a minute or more I'll warn them and then start counting down from five. We've got to get moving eventually) I routinely put my players in stressful situations. The stress adds pressure that adds enjoyment to the game for the players. I don't personally enjoy actually doing it, I only have a good time if the players are having a good time. That's the primary function of a DM, in my opinion. No...it's not a competitive game, but it IS a game. If there is zero stress then there is zero challenge, and at that point why bother playing?

So by forcing people into taking quick decisions, you take away their ability to play their character according to their ability scores? If that's okay with you and your group, then why are you even using ability scores? The mental scores obviously have no meaning if you're forcing players to use only their own mental abilities.

Of course, that might be a valid game, which everyone round the table enjoys - but it's not a role-playing game, it's an adventure game.

Since when does being smart make you faster under pressure? I know plenty of intelligent people that are slow on the draw. Honestly, the smartest person I play with is also the slowest to declare an action by a large margin. I like to give him time, because he usually comes up with an entertaining plan, but he sure doesn't do it in six seconds!

We get it....putting you on the clock would stress you out unduly and make you not enjoy the game. Understand that many people out there don't mind the pressure, and that doesn't make them "wrong" or "not roleplaying" any more than you are. To say these players are not playing a roleplaying game, but an adventure game, would be the same as me saying you're not playing a roleplaying game, you're playing a strategy game.

[Narren]

That's a lovely strawman argument, I must say. There's a significant difference between agreeing to sit down to play the game with the rules you can find in the actual book/SRD, and agreeing to sit down to the game, only to find that there are additional time pressures - indicated nowhere that I can find in the rulebooks or SRD - imposed on the players.

Have you never played a game with house rules? I expect there to be numerous house rules that I'm unfamiliar with in every group I see. Some I may enjoy, some I may not. I've never sat at a table that used RAW.

A closer analogy to the HP vs. time constraint issue, from my perspective, would be finding that the GM is planning to hit you on the head with a Nerf bat every time your character gets hit in combat - swinging harder or softer depending on how much damage was rolled - in order to 'simulate the stressful environment of an actual combat.' At a certain point, you're LARPing, not playing an RPG.

That's just as silly as abolishing hitpoints or throwing firecrackers (actually.....thinking about it, some firecracker props may be kind of fun). The main point of the 10 second time restraint (and that's just to declare an action, not resolve it) is to keep the game moving. I agree that it's not a combat simulation, so we can take a bit longer than our character has to think, but we shouldn't take all day. You can argue that 10 seconds is too short, but do you really think that a player should have an unlimited amount of time to make a split second decision?

[Aedilred]

So any time limit would be too much? Five minutes? Half an hour? As I've mentioned, ten seconds is definitely too short, but if a time limit is set that any reasonable player should be able to make a decision in, I don't see why it should lead people to walk away from the table. To be honest, if other players (whether I'm a player or a GM) were taking forever over their actions, I'd find that stressful, because I'd be thinking about all the things I could be doing with my life rather than sitting there watching this person be indecisive and worrying that the session wouldn't reach a satisfactory conclusion because it was all taking too long. It's not a one-way street.

Edit: I missed a few posts and have been largely ninjad.

[warty goblin]

That's a lovely strawman argument, I must say. There's a significant difference between agreeing to sit down to play the game with the rules you can find in the actual book/SRD, and agreeing to sit down to the game, only to find that there are additional time pressures - indicated nowhere that I can find in the rulebooks or SRD - imposed on the players.

It's not in any of the editions of D&D I've seen IIRC, but I certainly own (and have played) RPGs which state that if you don't make up your mind quickly enough, your character doesn't do anything that round. I've seen it often enough I wouldn't even really say it's a particularly uncommon rule.

[Sartharina]

I would not enjoy a time limit set for actions. Most likely if a DM is implementing this, there are other aspects of them controlling characters I wouldn't like either.
If this was something I couldn't sway the DM from, I'd take a few actions where I'd just do nothing as I gathered my things. Most of my friends I play with would probably do the same and half the table would walk away. Might not end a campaign but it puts a damper on the night.
That DM just would not be compatible with the relaxed games I want to play. If I want stress and fast decisions, I'll go to work. D&D is not competitive to me. It's where I go to relax and have fun. And making snap decisions is not fun to me.
If people enjoy it, that's their game, and they are welcome to it. But it should be something brought up before a game starts.

Aren't you also the guy who complained about not wanting to put up with people wasting your time?

[Thomas Hunter]

Different people want different things from their games? Shocking.


I'm going to reiterate that the inclusion or lack thereof of a time limit depends entirely on the players. Some groups will love it, some will hate it. Even if used, there may need to be exceptions - a group of level two heroes fighting Kobolds will need a lot less decision-making and party coordination (which, let's face it, takes time) than a group of high level heroes fighting a Lich King, his Bone Dragon, and a small army of minions.

I personally feel that ten seconds is a bit harsh, and if I were to implement such a rule in my group it would more likely be a minute, with exceptions for looking up rules/unfamiliarity.

I will also acknowledge that there are times when people take too long. If they're consistently taking ten minutes to make a decision, even after being prompted to speed things along in battle and chats after the session, it may be time to implement a (lenient) version of this rule. I wouldn't try to force them to act immediately, but at least make sure they're thinking when it's not their turn.

[jedipotter]

That's a lovely strawman argument, I must say. There's a significant difference between agreeing to sit down to play the game with the rules you can find in the actual book/SRD, and agreeing to sit down to the game, only to find that there are additional time pressures - indicated nowhere that I can find in the rulebooks or SRD - imposed on the players.

So I guess everyone chipping in equally for pizza, if they want to eat pizza, is something like that too. Page 42 of the game rule book does not say so, right? So mucher Bob can pay nothing and eat eight pieces of pizza?

The no cell phone rule is not in the rule books, so do you wait like for thirty minutes while Keven just ''has to'' talk to his girl friend?

How do you even get people to show up on time? If you say ''the game starts at 6pm'', they can just say ''forget you man, I'll show up when I feel like it. I don't want to play the game under your time pressure, and the rules don't say when the game starts. So, I'll be there, like, whenever....''

[Alex12]

So I guess everyone chipping in equally for pizza, if they want to eat pizza, is something like that too. Page 42 of the game rule book does not say so, right? So mucher Bob can pay nothing and eat eight pieces of pizza?

The no cell phone rule is not in the rule books, so do you wait like for thirty minutes while Keven just ''has to'' talk to his girl friend?

How do you even get people to show up on time? If you say ''the game starts at 6pm'', they can just say ''forget you man, I'll show up when I feel like it. I don't want to play the game under your time pressure, and the rules don't say when the game starts. So, I'll be there, like, whenever....''

Those are completely different things and you darn well know it. Those aren't game rules, those are rules or conditions for the social interactions surrounding the game.

If I show up for a game, and that game has a known and established ruleset, and then the DM springs a rule on me that isn't in the official rulebooks that we've agreed to based on (especially if I don't find out about that rule until it comes up and screws me over because I wasn't expecting it) then yeah, I'm not gonna be happy if that rule interferes with my enjoyment of the game.

I don't think anyone's saying "everyone can take a half-hour for their turn every turn." But 10 seconds is absurd.

Just as an example, I had one time, one time, where the DM imposed an out-of-game time limit for in-game actions. The party accidentally triggered an elevator while one character wasn't on it, and the elevator started going down. The DM took out a timer and turned it on. One player, playing a literal ninja with insane Dex, asked "what?" because he didn't understand what was going on. Once it was explained what was going on in a little more detail, he understood, but because of the disconnect between being told things and actually being there seeing them with your own eyes, his character with better reflexes than anyone else in the party stood there dumbly. The DM, a guy who I consider to be a pretty good DM, better than I am in many ways, never used the timer again in game.

[Thomas Hunter]

If I show up for a game, and that game has a known and established ruleset, and then the DM springs a rule on me that isn't in the official rulebooks that we've agreed to based on (especially if I don't find out about that rule until it comes up and screws me over because I wasn't expecting it) then yeah, I'm not gonna be happy if that rule interferes with my enjoyment of the game.

So, out of curiosity, would you be all right with a rule (more lenient than ten seconds; say, one minute) that HAD been brought up before? If, when laying out the details - what the game is, which sourcebooks are used, any restrictions, etc. - the DM had said "Also, to prevent excessively long combat, we'll be using one-minute turns, unless we need to look stuff up or something."?

[Sartharina]

Those are completely different things and you darn well know it. Those aren't game rules, those are rules or conditions for the social interactions surrounding the game.

If we're talking D&D... you may want to re-read the DMG. Especially the first chapter.

And - time limits on turns are ALSO conditions for the social interactions surrounding the game.

[Raptor_00]

Aren't you also the guy who complained about not wanting to put up with people wasting your time?

There's a big difference between "you have 10 seconds to make a decision" and "come over for a game we're not gonna play".

[Thrudd]

I agree with having a time limit on making combat decisions in D&D. This is not a strategy/war game. Planning and strategy are what happens before the fighting starts. Ten seconds may be too short, though, I'm more around 20-30. Players taking excessive time and/or not paying attention can be a huge problem and this is a perfect solution to that. Of course new players need some allowance while they are learning the game, but this shouldn't take more than a few combats.

I will always allow time to describe what their characters see and hear and answer reasonable questions, but I won't repeat myself incessantly or answer an unending string of questions on each player's turn, or allow repeated measuring and re-measuring and flipping through books. Spell casting players should know their spells and what they are capable of in general before the combat breaks out. I feel it breaks immersion and the flow of the game to descend into war-game mode and start measuring and calculating multiple options on every turn. I use minis as a visual aid for positioning and distance, I tell you what your characters see and hear, and you really shouldn't need much more info before deciding what to do, twenty seconds (per character) is plenty. I certainly don't take that long to decide the enemies and NPC actions.

It goes without saying that the time-limit rule would be explained to the players at the beginning of the game. I prefer not to hold players to a strict limit, but I will tell them about the limit so that I can say "ok, you're at the time limit, make a decision now", if I need to.

[Alex12]

So, out of curiosity, would you be all right with a rule (more lenient than ten seconds; say, one minute) that HAD been brought up before? If, when laying out the details - what the game is, which sourcebooks are used, any restrictions, etc. - the DM had said "Also, to prevent excessively long combat, we'll be using one-minute turns, unless we need to look stuff up or something."?

I'd be okay with it, yeah. At the very least, I'd be willing to give it a shot and see how things go. If it's working for everyone and enhancing enjoyment, great, keep using it! If upon testing it turns out nobody likes it, then reconsider. Wouldn't be the first time I've had that sort of experience with a houserule. Test it out, if it works, keep it, if it doesn't, scrap it.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

So I guess everyone chipping in equally for pizza, if they want to eat pizza, is something like that too. Page 42 of the game rule book does not say so, right? So mucher Bob can pay nothing and eat eight pieces of pizza?

The no cell phone rule is not in the rule books, so do you wait like for thirty minutes while Keven just ''has to'' talk to his girl friend?

How do you even get people to show up on time? If you say ''the game starts at 6pm'', they can just say ''forget you man, I'll show up when I feel like it. I don't want to play the game under your time pressure, and the rules don't say when the game starts. So, I'll be there, like, whenever....''

1: Social issue
2: Social issue
3: Social issue

In cases 2 & 3, of course you don't wait! You run their character while they're out of the game - same as your arrangements for if they didn't show up.
There's a world of difference between someone stepping out of the game to deal with real life and someone coping poorly with being put under pressure by some power mad git with a timer and a countdown.

[Knaight]

Comparing RPGs to Taboo is not fair (and ridiculous), unless you consider RPGs to be competitive games.

The underlying idea of stress response has approximately nothing to do with whether the game is competitive or not. The time limit sounds fun to me, and if someone has an issue with it, well, that's a matter of taste differences. Sometimes compromise can be found (I'm not at all attached to the idea, it can be dropped), sometimes it's irreconcilable.

[Kelb_Panthera]

While the game as a whole, be it D&D or otherwise, is not a competitive event; combat, inherently, is.

The players' characters are undeniably competing with the DM's NPCs for their very survival, if not higher stakes. This is inherently 'stressful' in a way that should make a minor time constraint trivial.

That said, there's rather a thin line between stress and excitement. A thin and subjective line, at that.

If you can't or don't want to deal with such a constraint, there's nothing wrong with that. However, some people will find that extra pressure exciting and enjoy it. Neither side is wrong.

The OP's question is directed, I suspect, at people in the latter group. I've already chimed in on that but I'll reiterate, 10 seconds is a bit short. 20 - 30 is probably more appropriate.

[The Grue]

On the other hand, while making snap decisions isn't fun for some people (completely understandable), consider being on the other side of the table, with the person who simply WILL. NOT. MAKE. UP. THEIR. MIND. They've had the entire round since their last action to think about what they're going to do. But every time it's their turn, they either have to be torn away from their phone, or will simply sit there, paralyzed by indecision, holding up the entire game (i.e. making things less fun) because they won't commit to an action.

I can understand not liking snap decisions, but the GM (and the player) have to consider everyone else's fun, too.

We've all been in a game with That Guy. I had a campaign once where That Guy played a Druid, and every time he was up in initiative order he'd look up the rules for every spell he'd prepared, look up his animal companion's sheet, look up how Pounce worked(and get it wrong every single time), look up how Wild Shape works, then spend the next couple of minutes looking up monsters in the SRD. Add additional time trying to get his tablet apps to work properly.

Without fail. Every single time.

Sometimes, for the sake of everyone else at the table, the GM has to put their foot down and say "Hey, decide what you're doing." It's not about punishing less experienced or indecisive players, it's about making sure no one player monopolizes playtime. The needs of the many etc.

[Narren]

[Mastikator]

That's a lovely strawman argument, I must say. There's a significant difference between agreeing to sit down to play the game with the rules you can find in the actual book/SRD, and agreeing to sit down to the game, only to find that there are additional time pressures - indicated nowhere that I can find in the rulebooks or SRD - imposed on the players.

A closer analogy to the HP vs. time constraint issue, from my perspective, would be finding that the GM is planning to hit you on the head with a Nerf bat every time your character gets hit in combat - swinging harder or softer depending on how much damage was rolled - in order to 'simulate the stressful environment of an actual combat.' At a certain point, you're LARPing, not playing an RPG.

You make it sound like the DM would be imposing house rules after the game started without mentioning it to the players beforehand. I don't know if that is a strawman or you've just had terrible DMs.

[Sartharina]

Time pressures are suggested in the DMGs to speed up play and discourage taking too long.

[oxybe]

We've all been in a game with That Guy. I had a campaign once where That Guy played a Druid, and every time he was up in initiative order he'd look up the rules for every spell he'd prepared, look up his animal companion's sheet, look up how Pounce worked(and get it wrong every single time), look up how Wild Shape works, then spend the next couple of minutes looking up monsters in the SRD. Add additional time trying to get his tablet apps to work properly.

Without fail. Every single time.

Sometimes, for the sake of everyone else at the table, the GM has to put their foot down and say "Hey, decide what you're doing." It's not about punishing less experienced or indecisive players, it's about making sure no one player monopolizes playtime. The needs of the many etc.

You tell "That Guy" to shape up or ship out. This isn't a problem with the game, but specifically one with that one player.

If you're having problems with one player, you fix the player and his issues (where excising the player is always a viable option if no other solution can be found) instead of penalizing the group with a 10 second time limit on decision of actions.

This way you don't end up punishing players who have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

If the fighter keeps having to recalculate his bonuses for charging with powerattack, you have him make sure that's already calculated and on his sheet beforehand so it's all ready to look up when the time comes.

If your druid keeps asking for the monster manual to grab commonly summoned animals or forms, have him print them out and by him for easy reference.

If your wizard keeps pageflipping for spells, they solved this problem in 2nd ed.

There are practical solutions to problems, but very rarely have I found that adding extra stress on an entire group of people out to have fun is a good solution to one bad (or at least moderately inconvenient) apple.

[Another_Poet]

One GM of mine has a simple request: have your Attack and Damage dice already in your hand when your turn comes around, and roll 'em both at once. If using a spell/power, look it up before your turn.

This seemed to work pretty well without a strict time limit rule, but then, we were all a pretty congenial group.

[Jay R]

Sometimes, for the sake of everyone else at the table, the GM has to put their foot down and say "Hey, decide what you're doing." It's not about punishing less experienced or indecisive players, it's about making sure no one player monopolizes playtime. The needs of the many etc.

Agreed. My approach is to say, "You don't know what you're doing? OK, your character looks around to decide what to do. I'll get back to you at the end of the round."

If he's a reasonable player who is currently lost, no problem. The need to think it through legitimately costs him initiative.

If he's That Guy, he should learn that it costs him to continue to act that way.

[Legato Endless]

We've all been in a game with That Guy. I had a campaign once where That Guy played a Druid, and every time he was up in initiative order he'd look up the rules for every spell he'd prepared, look up his animal companion's sheet, look up how Pounce worked(and get it wrong every single time), look up how Wild Shape works, then spend the next couple of minutes looking up monsters in the SRD. Add additional time trying to get his tablet apps to work properly.

Without fail. Every single time.

Sometimes, for the sake of everyone else at the table, the GM has to put their foot down and say "Hey, decide what you're doing." It's not about punishing less experienced or indecisive players, it's about making sure no one player monopolizes playtime. The needs of the many etc.

Agreed, but this brings up a related issue. Exactly how much of the table is this a problem for?

If you have six players, and one or two of them can't make up their mind, then you certainly could institute this rule...if you enjoy as using blunt cookie cutter solutions.

If the majority of your players are taking too long, and draining the fun out of the game, then sure, go for it. If you have a 'problem child' or two, placing a generalized rule is rather inelegant. Assuming your players possess a basic maturity to understand life is neither fair, nor would we all be happier if it actually were, i.e. not children, then generalized rules should be kept down unless the problem is truly endemic to the whole. Then it's better to focus on the players who are actually the problem. Perhaps they can be minded by a more responsible efficient player. Perhaps their character is a narcoleptic, and they do indeed skip turns every so often. Or if the issue is complexity, they are banned from using toys with an elaborate array of options until they show a more efficient handle on things, ect. If your group is majorly staffed with people who don't like being singled out...then the rule placement is unfortunately understandable.