30 minute rounds are killing me.

[opaopajr]

Segev brings up an important point: Individual Initiative continually changes the battlefield state.

That requires a lot of attention, a good deal of system familiarity, and generic tactical understanding.

It's one of the reasons I found the shift from TSR to WotC disappointing because before there was the main (Group Initiative, Group Modifier), but it had two main GM options with (Group Initiative, Individual Modifier) and (Individual Initiative, Individual Modifier). By going with (Individual Initiative, Individual Modifier) it added a lot more overhead -- everyone rolls, everyone has their own mods -- and the game battlefield state changed with greater granularity within a Round (now known as Turns in 5e).

I have seen it be way too much for many people. Further it does not scale well into more populated battlefields. It really was the solution for small duels or melee with a handful of combatants, allowing the dynamic shifts to be enjoyed with full attention.

Sometimes more options are better so a GM can use the right tool for the right moment.

[KorvinStarmast]

The allegedly "inattentive" player here may have had his turn entirely planned out, or been adjusting his turn and pouring over his abilities to make sure he had some idea of what to do after the person two turns ago altered the state of the battle with a couple monster deaths that changed his previously-planned turn, and now is caught out after the LAST turn changed the field AGAIN, and is trying to avoid having to replan his entire turn from square one by asking if there are injured enemies because he has some feature he'd been planning to use that requires either an injured enemy or that he drop an enemy if at all possible.

IME, this is (maybe) a partial problem. reacting to change / chaos is a part of what battle / the fog of war is all about. What I'd suggest any DM do is emphasize to a slow player that your decision doesn't have to be perfect but you need to make one. (Hence my two questions standard, which accommodates the change as the combat flows, and sometimes three questions are needed).
Make a decision.

and figure out if he can salvage his plan or if he has to make up his turn out of whole cloth again.

Make a decision, or dodge. Combat is chaotic, and if the DM keeps the pace up, those who can adapt will do so. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Treating this kind of player the way described by "your character takes the dodge action" is basically telling him, "Don't bother trying to use your class features; just tell the DM you attack an enemy and let the DM pick it for you so you don't waste time asking what figures are enemies and what aren't."

Rubbish. I have only rarely had to do this. It starts with "please make a decision" and then "OK, make a decision or dodge" and you know what happens? Players learn not to pull that over analysis / paralysis during combat after that. It was interesting a few sessions back that one of the players mentioned how I'd kept the tempo up during combat ... and all five players commented on how they appreciated how that improved the feel of combat.

I can only think of one player who I have had to apply that caution to with any frequency in this edition. Most people adapt.

You can ask Phoenix, if you like, if I practice what I preach as a player.

We discovered, much to my dismay, that Prismatic Spray is a great spell under certain conditions (get a load of enemies in the AoE) but man _insert frowny face here_ does it slow combat down as it is resolved roll by roll.
We had the other players roll some of the monster saves and a few damage rolls to speed things up.

[LudicSavant]

I need to know who was that!

Sid Meier (perhaps best known as the creator of Civilization, Pirates, and other such games).

[da newt]

I DM AL games quite a bit so many of the players are new, the other players are often strangers, and every time you play it's a bunch of different PCs. This does not promote quick play, but at least it's in person.

The things that I have found help are a quick 'This is combat - it's life or death. You have to pay attention and make quick decisions or you are going to die. You have six seconds to act. Use it well. Do your thinking BEFORE it's your turn.' preamble early in the session which tends to get folks into the idea that they want to stay involved if they want to 'win'.

If a player is asking questions that they should know the answer to because it's been discussed already, I'll RP it as 'your character doesn't know - they weren't paying attention. Make your decision with the information you have. This is the fog of war, all sorts of things are happening quickly, and monsters are trying to kill you.' I try to sell this with an evil smile - isn't this exciting!

I try to pair up new players with a more knowledgeable player to help mentor / explain rules and mechanics. I'll bend over backwards for someone who doesn't know how 5e works, and I'll give newer players suggestions - you can do X, Y, or Z and don't forget your BA and movement. Once I figure out one of my Players struggles to make decisions, I'll give them a chance to let me know they have a plan, and once it's obvious they don't I'll give them a choice of two options.

I also ensure the party has a chance to discuss / plan before starting combat (assuming they aren't surprised) but once we start, 6ish seconds of in character talking is all you get. Once I establish discussions are in character it really helps cut down the extra chatter. I do let other PCs respond in character with a few words / one quick sentence.

I try to always let players know they are up next.

I try to model good decisive efficient turns for my baddies with limited hemming and hawing over the perfect placement of an AOE or a bunch of should he X or Y? I try to talk through my decisions as I make them - the mechanics, the positives and negatives, and then quickly decide and roll. Teaching as I go. I also always use average damage and only roll attacks, saves, and ability checks.

During combat I usually stand and speak more quickly / urgently. I will use prompts like 'the clock is ticking' 'he's about to bite you, what are you doing?' I try to give quick recaps periodically - PC X is down, PC Y is grappled by that guy, the BBEG is bloodied, that caster is concentrating on that AOE ...

Lastly, I tell my players if you are looking at your phone, it better be your character sheet or PHB. You signed up for this game. You need to be here 100%.

And above all else I try to sell this all as positives - features that make the combat encounters better - more exciting - more impactful - more immersive.

[Segev]

IME, this is (maybe) a partial problem. reacting to change / chaos is a part of what battle / the fog of war is all about. What I'd suggest any DM do is emphasize to a slow player that your decision doesn't have to be perfect but you need to make one. (Hence my two questions standard, which accommodates the change as the combat flows, and sometimes three questions are needed).
Make a decision.

Make a decision, or dodge. Combat is chaotic, and if the DM keeps the pace up, those who can adapt will do so. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Rubbish. I have only rarely had to do this. It starts with "please make a decision" and then "OK, make a decision or dodge" and you know what happens? Players learn not to pull that over analysis / paralysis during combat after that. It was interesting a few sessions back that one of the players mentioned how I'd kept the tempo up during combat ... and all five players commented on how they appreciated how that improved the feel of combat.

I can only think of one player who I have had to apply that caution to with any frequency in this edition. Most people adapt.

All I can say is, I would, if I stayed in a game run like this, wind up either dodging every turn, or blasting the party with friendly fire, because I am not given the information needed to simulate what my PC would know. Or my PC is expected to not be able to tell where everyone is and thus should never cast spells or make attacks.

If I'm not playing anybody who can fireball the field, I'd wind up saying, "Fine, DM, I attack an enemy. You pick which one, since you won't give me the time to figure out who's where."

I would then tune out even more from combat, because I have no agency in it.

[Keltest]

So for people who are saying they need 30 seconds to find out which enemy is where and who is alive and what not... do you guys exclusively play in theater of the mind or what? Because especially in the age of online play, all my groups have, at the very least, a white board with relative positions on it so people can see where everyone is at a glance, and more often have a detailed battle map.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So for people who are saying they need 30 seconds to find out which enemy is where and who is alive and what not... do you guys exclusively play in theater of the mind or what? Because especially in the age of online play, all my groups have, at the very least, a white board with relative positions on it so people can see where everyone is at a glance, and more often have a detailed battle map.

Yeah. Was gonna say this. It's one reason I don't do theater of the mind for anything but very simple combats--I as the DM struggle to keep track of where everyone is.

I don't restrict everything to 90 degree angles on a grid, but the grid is there (because the software/chessex mat provides it) as a guide. And markers are added/removed/re-marked as things die.

[Tanarii]

Some players are overthinkers who need to analyze and comprehend all the current information to make a decisions, because to them "eh good enough" is the enemy of perfect. They usually want to play the combat part of the game like a tactical board game, making the perfect move. (As a side note, these players often go a little crazy inside when there isn't a gridded battlemat, instead using TotM or maybe some rough white board diagrams.)

IMX most are not. They like fast paced combat, instinctively embrace perfect is the enemy of good, and will make decisions on the fly with little problem.

The first kind of players really don't like the combat game I run. And there's nothing wrong with that ... BUT they are in the minority. Less so in TTRPG community that IRL (so to speak), since it's heavy on folks who naturally analyze stuff for a living (or are in college to learn to do so), but still a minority.

Really this is one of the bigger things to find out about your players and put them in appropriate groups as much as possible. Or be clear up front what kind of game you run.

[Segev]

Some players are overthinkers who need to analyze and comprehend all the current information to make a decisions, because to them "eh good enough" is the enemy of perfect. They usually want to play the combat part of the game like a tactical board game, making the perfect move. (As a side note, these players often go a little crazy inside when there isn't a gridded battlemat, instead using TotM or maybe some rough white board diagrams.)

IMX most are not. They like fast paced combat, instinctively embrace perfect is the enemy of good, and will make decisions on the fly with little problem.

The first kind of players really don't like the combat game I run. And there's nothing wrong with that ... BUT they are in the minority. Less so in TTRPG community that IRL (so to speak), since it's heavy on folks who naturally analyze stuff for a living (or are in college to learn to do so), but still a minority.

Really this is one of the bigger things to find out about your players and put them in appropriate groups as much as possible. Or be clear up front what kind of game you run.

There is also a DM compatibility issue with whether "perfect is enemy of good" or "Good enough is enemy of perfect." When a DM runs combats that are "too easy" (to many DM's minds) it's easy enough to play a more relaxed style where you just try to do "well enough." But when combats are deadly all the time, and mistakes cost you heavily, making the "Good Enough" choice gets your PC and possibly other players' PCs killed.

[Easy e]

Yes, yes. It is the GM's fault.... again!

If combat takes too long, it is the GM's fault. If a player does not know what to do, it is the GM's fault. If a GM rushes a player, it is the GM's fault. If the GM let's them take too long, it is the GM's fault. If a player does not know their class features it is the GM's fault for not giving them enough time. Combats are too hard, it is the GM's fault.
Combats are too easy, it is the GM's fault. If a player brings a snack no-one likes it is the GM's fault!

No wonder a lot of groups have 1 forever-GM. Who wants to take the blame for all the ills of the game 100% of the time? Very few people would sign up for that!

[Mastikator]

Yes, yes. It is the GM's fault.... again!

If combat takes too long, it is the GM's fault. If a player does not know what to do, it is the GM's fault. If a GM rushes a player, it is the GM's fault. If the GM let's them take too long, it is the GM's fault. If a player does not know their class features it is the GM's fault for not giving them enough time. Combats are too hard, it is the GM's fault.
Combats are too easy, it is the GM's fault. If a player brings a snack no-one likes it is the GM's fault!

No wonder a lot of groups have 1 forever-GM. Who wants to take the blame for all the ills of the game 100% of the time? Very few people would sign up for that!

When you do all the work, everything that goes wrong is your fault

But yeah, sometimes players should shut their ungrateful pie holes if they're not saying "thanks for GMing, you did a great job".

[KorvinStarmast]

All I can say is, I would, if I stayed in a game run like this, wind up either dodging every turn, or blasting the party with friendly fire, because I am not given the information needed to simulate what my PC would know.

Hardly. Pay attention and you'll know.

Or my PC is expected to not be able to tell where everyone is and thus should never cast spells or make attacks.

This kind of all or nothing hyperbole is more rubbish.

If I'm not playing anybody who can fireball the field, I'd wind up saying, "Fine, DM, I attack an enemy. You pick which one, since you won't give me the time to figure out who's where."

I would then tune out even more from combat, because I have no agency in it.

Let's see: defeatist attitude, passive aggressive behavior, maybe work on your social skills a bit. The rest of the table is there to have fun and play a game. Also, it is on the player to know his PC, what the PC can do. <= This is another area where slow play comes from, but I suspect that in your case it's not the issue.

Some players are overthinkers who need to analyze and comprehend all the current information to make a decisions, because to them "eh good enough" is the enemy of perfect. They usually want to play the combat part of the game like a tactical board game, making the perfect move. (As a side note, these players often go a little crazy inside when there isn't a gridded battlemat, instead using TotM or maybe some rough white board diagrams.)

IMX most are not. They like fast paced combat, instinctively embrace perfect is the enemy of good, and will make decisions on the fly with little problem.

The first kind of players really don't like the combat game I run. And there's nothing wrong with that ... BUT they are in the minority. Less so in TTRPG community that IRL (so to speak), since it's heavy on folks who naturally analyze stuff for a living (or are in college to learn to do so), but still a minority.

Really this is one of the bigger things to find out about your players and put them in appropriate groups as much as possible. Or be clear up front what kind of game you run.

I dropped out of a group where a player could not make a decision for 13 minutes. An extreme case? Yes, but I'd had enough. I was player, not a DM.

Yes, yes. It is the GM's fault.... again!

If combat takes too long, it is the GM's fault.
If a player does not know what to do, it is the GM's fault.
If a GM rushes a player, it is the GM's fault.
If the GM let's them take too long, it is the GM's fault.
If a player does not know their class features it is the GM's fault for not giving them enough time.
Combats are too hard, it is the GM's fault.
Combats are too easy, it is the GM's fault. If a player brings a snack no-one likes it is the GM's fault!

No wonder a lot of groups have 1 forever-GM. Who wants to take the blame for all the ills of the game 100% of the time? Very few people would sign up for that!

Laughed, I did.

[ciopo]

Hardly. Pay attention and you'll know.

Eh, I don't know, I kind of feel what Segev is trying to say.

I know myself and I know my characters, I play with passion, I would fit two more campaign in my week if I could ( currently playing 5 and a half per week, so close and yet so far from that holy grail of a campaign a day:) )

And in theater of the mind style games, I'm that much slower, in spite of of attention, because I ask most basic stuff like "is XYZ close enough for me to charge it and attack" "are mook 1 and mook 2 close enough to each other but far away enough from friendlies that I could (do aoe thing) and hit both of them but not allies/innocent bystanders", you may pretend 6 seconds glances aren't "enough" to get this kind of information, but alas we aren't playing in a virtual reality with first person view, nor we have perfected the mindmeld to have brain to brain communication, therefore unless your description are along the lines of "mook a is 25ft to your left and slighty north", I *will* feel like I lack agency and default to an extreme verbose "covering my bases" description along the lines of "I attack the nearest enemy I can safely reach without provoking attack of opportunity and that doesn't put me in danger of being flanked or pincushioned by ranged attackers" (tack on more and more). Because your 5 minutes description to set the scene conveys somewhat less tactical information than a 6 second glance to a battle map would do for me. Even if it was 1st person actually, since with a group we experimented with 1st person view on Talespire. "battle is confusing" to me feels like a lie, not because *I* would fit in, but because our characters are kinda supposed to be professional

Unless you spend like 25 minutes between each round to somewhat accurately paint the scene, because "your friend Greg the barbarian charged the troll with a mighty swing and blablabla" tells me almost nothing actually actionable, since it's all pretend in our minds and so I might assume I can, I don't know, go straight for some other interactable in the scene that sounded like I could interact with, but it's actually window dressing for the combat and in your mind it was meant to be interacted after the gaurds were dispatched or whatever.


Not in a effort to make the perfect play, but to engage in the scenario the scenario needs to be known, and since the topic is *combat*, distance and positioning matters. Unless we all play dumb "I go for the closest target", which is kinda boring and not-engaging.


I'm sure there are *more* that can be done in theather of the mind, I don't know, simple example, throwing a smoke bomb to screen the party from ranged attackers while we take care of the melee. I know we can "just describe that", but again, unless your description are "big", my assumption that either we and/or the arcehrs are close enough that a (this size) smoke cloud would achieve the desired effect... it's very wiggly, I'm trying to say, and wigglyness kills the tempo



Could you give me a sample of what you would say to describe an average combat scene? That way I can tell you if I'd be slow or fast if I were to play with you, and where I might get tripped up

[False God]

A lot of the discussion around ToTM vs a grid is particularly why I've moved away from D&D as my core game. I'm not terribly interested in the ultra-tactical wargame-lite gameplay anymore. I find ToTM substantially faster, IF and that's a big if, a player can separate themselves from the D&D-esque grid-based tactical mindset.

I'm not dumping on tactical gameplay, only that 5E really isn't the place for it. It's not granular enough for anything resembling tactics to actually matter. 3.5 gives you many more reasons to approach the game tactically, and 4E basically said "here's some tactics for your tactics so you can tactics while you tactics!" But 5E? Not really.

But IME, if a player can separate themselves from the grid, I've generally found they play faster because they're not looking at the table for optimal moves. They're looking at me (when I GM) more, they're listening to other players more, and they're making moves based on what is appropriate to the situation, rather than what is tactically optimal based on the grid. The worst questions I get are "Bob just downed the goblin in front of me, where's the next one?" To which the response is "To your leftish, about twice your movement away, on a rocky outcropping with a bow."

The exact location of this information doesn't really matter. The player is now left with the option to switch weapons, do something else to aid the party, or find some way to reach that goblin on foot. The tactics of the question don't even factor in. The player plays faster because I'm responding to them faster, rather than them staring at the board trying to make the best chess move.

I also find there is a lot of time consumed in moving minis, positioning minis, preventing other minis from getting knocked over, drawing out maps, and people taking maps WAY too literally. Like, I'm doing my best to draw up this forest in the next 45 seconds and then players want to hash out if this tree I drew on a corner of 4 squares is actually taking up all 4, only one 'cause its a little lop-sided, is it the size of a full square, can they climb it? Like, who cares? When I describe the scene as a heavily wooded area they only ask "Is there a tree I can climb to get a good shot?" And instead of waiting for the board to give them a tactically beneficial answer, I can just say "Yes, on your right, but its branches look very tangled, even with a successful climb check, your speed would be reduced going up it." Or maybe "Oh yeah totally there's one just 5 feet away, looks like an easy climb." Depending on what is more thematically appropriate and makes the game more engaging and interesting.

[da newt]

I really prefer a battle mat w/ scribbles and figures - TotM is not my preference by a long stretch, but I do find that TotM works best if a player declares what they want to do in a way that allows the GM to adjudicate it. For example, 'I want to cast fireball where I can hit as many bad guys as I can but not my allies, unless I can only target one baddie then I'll cantrip the nearest threat to me' or 'I'll shoot the most injured target w/ my bow and then hide' etc

If you can skip the questions and just tell the Gm what you'd like to do it allows them to help you achieve your goal as best the situation allows and keeps things moving.

[ciopo]

@False God
Fair, I would probably be fastish with you.

I'm not sure I would have as much fun as usual with this decoupling you mention, because "I attack the closest enemy/most dangerous enemy/squishiest enemy/adjective creature" is leaving it to you to, as you say, adjudicate whose day I am to ruin today.

That is to say, it might not feel like I'm really making a choice, but I'd have to actually play together to really know, devils in the details and all that

I prefer 3.pf, as you say

[icefractal]

I originally liked TotM, but after GMing some games that way I've changed my mind -

Abstract positioning, either fully "position doesn't matter" or "zones" or whatever, is fine. If the rules reflect that. Exact positioning, with a visual representation, is fine. But "exact positioning theoretically exists, and the rules interact with it, but it only exists in the GM's head and is communicated to the players a bit at a time" sucks for anything even a little complex. And I say this from a GM POV.

If you don't want players to be worrying about precise tactical positioning, use a system where exact positioning doesn't matter (or house-rule your preferred system that way).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I originally liked TotM, but after GMing some games that way I've changed my mind -

Abstract positioning, either fully "position doesn't matter" or "zones" or whatever, is fine. If the rules reflect that. Exact positioning, with a visual representation, is fine. But "exact positioning theoretically exists, and the rules interact with it, but it only exists in the GM's head and is communicated to the players a bit at a time" sucks for anything even a little complex. And I say this from a GM POV.

If you don't want players to be worrying about precise tactical positioning, use a system where exact positioning doesn't matter (or house-rule your preferred system that way).

Yeah, as someone sympathetic to TotM, I agree with you. It would work a lot better in a system that doesn't interact with exact ranges and areas. We don't have to go to fixed grids like 4e, but having a visual representation of locations works a lot better for me as a DM and player.

[Segev]

Hardly. Pay attention and you'll know.
This kind of all or nothing hyperbole is more rubbish.
Let's see: defeatist attitude, passive aggressive behavior, maybe work on your social skills a bit. The rest of the table is there to have fun and play a game. Also, it is on the player to know his PC, what the PC can do. <= This is another area where slow play comes from, but I suspect that in your case it's not the issue.

Oh, I know what I can do. The question is, what can I apply now? The battlefield literally just changed, and I want to make sure I understand the situation.

The problem is the "two questions, maybe three" rule. That is on the DM, yes. It's his rule. Even when I dither, I take less time than other players, frequently. I often do have my turn ready to go. It's not a matter of failing to pay attention if I planned everything out with a misconception - such as that that pog there by the tree was one of the goblins, not a hostage, oops - it's a matter of the limits of communication.

If I'm on a strict question and time budget because I haven't perfectly understood how the battlefield changed in the half second since the end of the last turn, it's going to actually slow me down.

Feel free to insist players keep moving. But the moment you have a hard limit rather than a case-by-case judgment, you're already failing as DM. If I wanted hard limits and quicktime action sequences, I'd play the bad Telltale games that came out after Back to the Future.

[Tanarii]

There is also a DM compatibility issue with whether "perfect is enemy of good" or "Good enough is enemy of perfect." When a DM runs combats that are "too easy" (to many DM's minds) it's easy enough to play a more relaxed style where you just try to do "well enough." But when combats are deadly all the time, and mistakes cost you heavily, making the "Good Enough" choice gets your PC and possibly other players' PCs killed.

5e doesn't support that kind of combat play though. On the most dangerous combats, it supports 3 Deadly battles per adventuring day, with a short rest in between. From personal experience, it also supports up to 5 Deadly battles per day with a short rest in between. Those are do not require for every combat, each turn, making/avoiding choices that might get your PC killed. (The very last one of the adventuring day might if you go far past an adventuring day. And that's fine.)

For all combats to require that turn-by-turn would require multiple times Deadly combats, or maybe skipping short rests. And the game definitely doesn't support that, in a multitude of ways.

There are plenty of out of combat decisions that can require that kind of thinking on a regular basis of course. The biggest one being "can we push on and risk the next combat".

[KorvinStarmast]

Oh, I know what I can do. The question is, what can I apply now? The battlefield literally just changed, and I want to make sure I understand the situation.

The problem is the "two questions, maybe three" rule. That is on the DM, yes. It's his rule. Even when I dither, I take less time than other players, frequently. I often do have my turn ready to go. It's not a matter of failing to pay attention if I planned everything out with a misconception - such as that that pog there by the tree was one of the goblins, not a hostage, oops - it's a matter of the limits of communication.

If I'm on a strict question and time budget because I haven't perfectly understood how the battlefield changed in the half second since the end of the last turn, it's going to actually slow me down.

It doesn't have to, but there are for sure times in a complicated fight that they will. My usual budget for a player to take their turn is a minute, with a bit more for questions. You may be confusing me with someone who tries to make the PLAYER choose in six seconds. That isn't me.

Spoiler: Snip snark and sarcasm

Show

Feel free to insist players keep moving. But the moment you have a hard limit rather than a case-by-case judgment, you're already failing as DM. If I wanted hard limits and quicktime action sequences, I'd play the bad Telltale games that came out after Back to the Future.

It works at my tables, and it works very well.
Maybe instead of arguing about it, try it at your table.
But, when suggesting that, I am aware that the table needs to have that expectation set in order for it to work. Something about being on the same page, and all that.

Or, just live with 30 minute rounds.

[Easy e]

As a player at a table that was taking too long, I have said, "What can we do to help us all move faster?" Then, listened and tried to do the things they asked.

When I stopped being passive-aggressive I just went to straight aggressive and said, "Hey Rain-delay, I can feel my beard growing over here."

[Frogreaver]

Our biggest slow down is with one player that prefers to chat real life instead of play. He distracts the DM and the game grinds to a halt.

[KorvinStarmast]

When I stopped being passive-aggressive I just went to straight aggressive and said, "Hey Rain-delay, I can feel my beard growing over here."

I have on a few occasions, as a player, made similar digs toward the slowpokes.

Our biggest slow down is with one player that prefers to chat real life instead of play. He distracts the DM and the game grinds to a halt.

You and the other players have the inherent authority to tell them to stop Wasting Your Time with their digreessions.
If you as a group of players have not done this - censuring the one wasting your time - why haven't you? You'll get the behavior that you put up with.

[Keravath]

Interesting discussion. I find slow play in combat is a combination of factors.
- knowing the tactical situation
- knowing what your character can do
- deciding what your character will do
- executing your plan

.. and each and every step in that process can be slow. Which step or steps slow a specific individual is usually different in each case.

The ability of each person to imagine or picture the situation varies a lot. The DM may describe the scene and one person takes it all in while another is still focusing on the first sentence of the DM's comment (eg. 10 goblins spring from behind cover, two run towards the windlass for the portcullis ... some folks hear the part about the goblins and miss the other descriptive elements).

Some people aren't tactically minded so they just attack whoever is nearest, rather than the ones running to do something bad.

Some people don't focus on one target and instead everyone squares off against whatever is closest (this can easily change the difficulty of any combat).

Some people don't have a great memory. It isn't necessarily that they aren't paying attention but rather than they just don't remember what was said even if it was just a couple minutes ago. For some reason, their brain loses details. This can be worse the more theatre of the mind is involved and the more creatures there are in the combat.

----

So, what can be done? A DM can recognize some of the factors that make specific individuals slower and try to compensate for them. If a player always forgets details, give a 15 second summary at the start of their turn. "6 orcs, these 3 are injured, this one is the most injured". Of course, encourage them to pay attention if that is the issue but sometimes that isn't the issue even though it has the same symptoms.

DM can keep a running update of opponents so that everyone at the table knows and understands what the current situation is.

For newer players, if they are having some troubles figuring out what their character can do then the DM could ask a more experienced player sitting next to them to assist if the player would like the help. Most new players don't mind, they usually feel better and more welcome when they are understanding what is going on better. The assistant can also encourage them to look at what their character can do before their turn comes around. (The DM can drop occasional reminders that everyone should be thinking about what they want to do when their turn comes up).

Knowing the situation and what your character can do, almost always makes the decision process easy and fast. It is usually lack of knowledge that has the player hemming and hawing trying to figure out what might be the best thing to do.

This can also be made faster by the DM running the situations in such a way that perfect decisions aren't required to succeed. Sometimes, if everyone doesn't use focused fire then the combat goes from something the DM thought would be relatively easy to a near TPK. Players don't like to be blamed in such a situation or feel bad for making a mistake. So, it is best if the consequences of making ONE incorrect decision in a combat are modest rather than dire. Otherwise, the player feels the weight of consequences and spends much more time trying really hard to come up with the best course of action which takes far more time than needed.

Finally, we come to my pet peeve which is execution. This is also why I like virtual table tops. When running on roll 20, I have every roll always made with 2 d20s (for advantage, straight roll, or disadvantage as required), always roll damage including crits. The player presses the button two or three times and all the information needed to resolve their turn (including all the correctly calculated modifiers to hit and damage) pops up in 15 seconds (unless the virtual table top lags which is usually not too frequent). As DM, I can then resolve the effects of their turn in a few seconds and move on.

In person, rolling dice can be and mostly is far LESS efficient. When I run my turn as a player, I roll the d20s (one or two as appropriate for advantage or disadvantage), and the damage dice at the same time. If I have multiple attacks, I roll them all at once. I add the modifiers, tell the DM the attacks that hit and the damage (since if I pay attention I usually have a decent idea of the to hit roll needed after the first round - AND if the total is over 20, it usually hits and if it doesn't, the DM will be sure to let us know). My turn can be done in 30 seconds.

However, that is NOT how many players turns go. I have played with folks who do the following when it is their turn ...

- attack decision might actually be pretty fast (though that will vary depending on how well they understand the current scene)
- find a d20 in their dice
- shake die in hand for several seconds then roll it
- look at the character sheet to get modifier (even though it hasn't changed all night - memory issue I commented on above)
- add the modifier (which takes a while because many folks can be slow at mental math)
- asks the DM if the result hits (even in most cases where they should know already)
- if it hits they look for the needed damage die
- shake die in hand for several seconds then roll damage die
- look up the damage modifier
- add it
- report damage to the DM
- rinse and repeat for each attack, bonus action or whatever

The mechanical execution of the one player turn can take 3-5 minutes at times just by itself. In this one aspect, I find virtual table tops and dice to be FAR more efficient.

I also find that the VTT rolling dice keeps everyone happier that the game is being run fairly. As DM, I always show the die rolls of the NPCs/monsters. There is no question of either players or the DM fudging dice that way. I don't like the players rolling their own dice and reporting it because it just seems to seed distrust for many when one player just always rolls better than the rest. "Why does that character just always make all the important saving throws?"

P.S. If the DM is regularly taking 1 minute/NPC to decide and execute their turn then the DM also needs to be thinking ahead, know what the NPC can do, and get more efficient at rolling the dice too :)

[Trask]

I once had an issue at the table with players taking too long, but not from my perspective. One player got very irritated with the rest of the group, and would regularly ask me to employ a turn timer (which I didn't do). Coincidentally (or not), this player wasn't very interested in optimizing her combat effectiveness, but rather was the kind of player who just wanted to see what was in the next room. She would check out often when combat was perceived to take too long, and when it was her turn would just go into autopilot; absentmindedly rolling a die and declare "hit" or "miss". It was never really resolved in that campaign, and I often wonder what I should've done, because I didn't really do anything and that clearly didn't work out.

Looking back I think it can be mitigated with DM massaging, but ultimately it comes down to play preference. Some people are just more strategic than others, and I don't think its a "new player" thing either (although the aforementioned player was new), because I know that as an experienced player I've felt annoyed at my fellow player's time taking their turns, just because whatever was happening outside combat was way more interesting to me, and I wanted to get through more of it.

There comes a point where quantity has a quality all it's own, and getting through 5 faster, less complex and tactical combats and seeing more of the dungeon/the plot is just more fun than one or two very dense tactical combats where not much progress is made. That being said, I do enjoy a good tactical combat, especially when the stakes around it are high.

That player I mentioned at the beginning went on to use the turn timer with great gusto when she ran Curse of Strahd for us. It actually went fine, but there's always a tradeoff of something lost. In this case, not only the focus on tactics, but also some of the casual fun of the table.

[Easy e]

The actual time it takes is secondary to how engaged the players feel during the combat of the round. In "traditonal" D&D mechanics the players declare and resolve their actions, then they wait until the GM and all the other players complete their actions. In essence, when they are not taking an action the player is passive and has no real reason to stay engaged at all. Here are some potential ways to mod the existing D&D rules to be more engaging..... not faster, just more engaging. The real issue is engagement.


1. Don't have the GM roll any dice. Only let the results of the players dice roll matter. Therefore, instead of the DM rolling to hit, when a player is attacked have the player roll the details for themselves. The rounds take just as long, but the players feel way more engaged with what is happening.

2. Homebrew some sort of reaction mechanic that players can use when they are attacked. Again, not going to speed up the actual combat BUT it makes it feel a lot more interesting when you are constantly making decisions/doing something instead of just waiting to remove hit points.

3. Create more situations where interrupts or reactions are possible instead of such a strict turn order. For example, the player can spend a resource in order to "interrupt" and take some action beyond the normal turn order. Perhaps some sort of Meta-Story points, or Battlemaster dice, etc. Perhaps giving everyone a free "held action" with a specific trigger, etc. Or, you could simply expand the range of attacks of opportunity/reactions that all ready exist. Again, it would require some homebrewing but now players are always looking out for when they can use their "reaction" even when it is not their turn.

4. GMs should break up monster Initiative order to create a more varied battle. I.e. Players and enemies should alternate activation whenever possible. Roll for Initiative and stack the players in order, monsters are inserted as needed in the order. Paladin attacks, then a goblin, then the cleric, than a different goblin, then the rogue, then a bugbear, etc. Repeat until all players/monsters have shot. If the monsters outnumber the players, than they get to double up on activations sometimes. Having to constantly react to monster actions force players to stay focused as they can not rely on their own activation supremacy. Again, individual turns are not faster but players are more engaged with the action.


This is not a matter of hyper-tactical vs. not tactical. If you look at the world of "modern" tactical wargames the genre is always experimenting with turn order, activation, action/reaction and other mechanics. Even in these "tactical wargames" turn time and player engagement is a concern for designers. There is nothing worse than waiting 30 minutes for you two dice rolls, and then essentially being on a coffee break until it is your turn.

Engagement makes the difference between 30 minute rounds that are unbearable, and 30 minutes rounds that are good.

[Frogreaver]

The actual time it takes is secondary to how engaged the players feel during the combat of the round. In "traditonal" D&D mechanics the players declare and resolve their actions, then they wait until the GM and all the other players complete their actions. In essence, when they are not taking an action the player is passive and has no real reason to stay engaged at all. Here are some potential ways to mod the existing D&D rules to be more engaging..... not faster, just more engaging. The real issue is engagement.


1. Don't have the GM roll any dice. Only let the results of the players dice roll matter. Therefore, instead of the DM rolling to hit, when a player is attacked have the player roll the details for themselves. The rounds take just as long, but the players feel way more engaged with what is happening.

2. Homebrew some sort of reaction mechanic that players can use when they are attacked. Again, not going to speed up the actual combat BUT it makes it feel a lot more interesting when you are constantly making decisions/doing something instead of just waiting to remove hit points.

3. Create more situations where interrupts or reactions are possible instead of such a strict turn order. For example, the player can spend a resource in order to "interrupt" and take some action beyond the normal turn order. Perhaps some sort of Meta-Story points, or Battlemaster dice, etc. Perhaps giving everyone a free "held action" with a specific trigger, etc. Or, you could simply expand the range of attacks of opportunity/reactions that all ready exist. Again, it would require some homebrewing but now players are always looking out for when they can use their "reaction" even when it is not their turn.

4. GMs should break up monster Initiative order to create a more varied battle. I.e. Players and enemies should alternate activation whenever possible. Roll for Initiative and stack the players in order, monsters are inserted as needed in the order. Paladin attacks, then a goblin, then the cleric, than a different goblin, then the rogue, then a bugbear, etc. Repeat until all players/monsters have shot. If the monsters outnumber the players, than they get to double up on activations sometimes. Having to constantly react to monster actions force players to stay focused as they can not rely on their own activation supremacy. Again, individual turns are not faster but players are more engaged with the action.


This is not a matter of hyper-tactical vs. not tactical. If you look at the world of "modern" tactical wargames the genre is always experimenting with turn order, activation, action/reaction and other mechanics. Even in these "tactical wargames" turn time and player engagement is a concern for designers. There is nothing worse than waiting 30 minutes for you two dice rolls, and then essentially being on a coffee break until it is your turn.

Engagement makes the difference between 30 minute rounds that are unbearable, and 30 minutes rounds that are good.

Interesting, I actually find players go as a block (player order doesnÂ’t matter) then monsters go as a block or vice versa to be more engaging than breaking up the initiative.

IME this works because
1. Newer/ distracted players can take the time the other players go through their actions to think about theirs. They arenÂ’t holding anyone up and know they can act once they figure it out.

2. Tactical players will stay more engaged because theirs nothing worse than another PC positioning themselves in the middle of a big could have been AOE and so instead of waiting till the last and over analyzing everything they will tend towards jumping in before others interfere with their preliminary plan. This takes engagement both around enemies and Allys.

There’s just less overall player passivity and when it comes to going from passive to active one player or even a few aren’t holding the group up nearly as much.

[False God]

The actual time it takes is secondary to how engaged the players feel during the combat of the round. In "traditonal" D&D mechanics the players declare and resolve their actions, then they wait until the GM and all the other players complete their actions. In essence, when they are not taking an action the player is passive and has no real reason to stay engaged at all. Here are some potential ways to mod the existing D&D rules to be more engaging..... not faster, just more engaging. The real issue is engagement.

Agree, the speed of combat, and frankly, any details about it at all, any approaches, everything all comes down to keeping the players engaged.

1. Don't have the GM roll any dice. Only let the results of the players dice roll matter. Therefore, instead of the DM rolling to hit, when a player is attacked have the player roll the details for themselves. The rounds take just as long, but the players feel way more engaged with what is happening.

2. Homebrew some sort of reaction mechanic that players can use when they are attacked. Again, not going to speed up the actual combat BUT it makes it feel a lot more interesting when you are constantly making decisions/doing something instead of just waiting to remove hit points.

I agree HEAVILY with reaction mechanics, but I don't think players should be rolling attacks against them. I'd argue a better solution would just be for the DM to just decide if an attack hits, misses, etc... as is thematically appropriate to the scene and maintains tension and engagement. You could have the players roll in the form of a reactive defense, but I personally as a player and DM, enjoy when certain elements are completely out of my control.

3. Create more situations where interrupts or reactions are possible instead of such a strict turn order. For example, the player can spend a resource in order to "interrupt" and take some action beyond the normal turn order. Perhaps some sort of Meta-Story points, or Battlemaster dice, etc. Perhaps giving everyone a free "held action" with a specific trigger, etc. Or, you could simply expand the range of attacks of opportunity/reactions that all ready exist. Again, it would require some homebrewing but now players are always looking out for when they can use their "reaction" even when it is not their turn.

This goes back to the previous element, but again I'm a bit fan of reactive combat. I do feel it slows things down, but I think a GM can overcome that by speeding up their own pace of these reactions. Reactive combat does not work well when each decision to react slow, when players and GMs have to look through a laundry list of special features and abilities. Reactions themselves should feel fast and the decision to use them should be made fast. But this is a skill and system familiarity issue more than anything. The options themselves should not necessarily feel simple but they should be intuitive. A player should ideally be able to declare that they "Block" or "Parry" or "Dodge" as a reaction and the reaction works as they imagine it should.

4. GMs should break up monster Initiative order to create a more varied battle. I.e. Players and enemies should alternate activation whenever possible. Roll for Initiative and stack the players in order, monsters are inserted as needed in the order. Paladin attacks, then a goblin, then the cleric, than a different goblin, then the rogue, then a bugbear, etc. Repeat until all players/monsters have shot. If the monsters outnumber the players, than they get to double up on activations sometimes. Having to constantly react to monster actions force players to stay focused as they can not rely on their own activation supremacy. Again, individual turns are not faster but players are more engaged with the action.

I feel this depends highly on the "feel" of any given combat. Two highly tactical groups may take regular group-turns. A mob of unintelligent monsters may get random turn orders every round while the players get to keep theirs. A more fluid battle may see everyone rerolling their initiative each turn. I don't think there's a good solution that necessarily always makes the game faster at least, and it depends on the players. Tactical, coordinated players may act faster when acting together. Non-tactical players may work better alone.

At the very least, I'd suggest keeping any and all of these options available as different combats may call for different approaches to appropriate set the tone and theme, and maintain engagement.

[Easy e]

I also like when the GM chooses if an attack hits or misses based on what works for the scene. However, this is the D&D 5e forum and that is a bridge too far for a lot of people.

As a corollary thought to the above, I have played where the player attacks, and if it hits then they are not attacked back. If they miss, they take damage or are hit by the target instead. Speeds things up a lot as the monster and player attack is resolved "simultaneously" with a single roll.

Great call for the folks who talked about Group Turns! Those also work great at speeding things up if the GM doesn't take forever to resolve enemy actions on a enemy-by-enemy action. If the GM takes too long, the players can all essentially leave the room during the GMs turn and return to reduce their HP and miss nothing.

Edit: I also like to re-roll Initiative every turn, as that keeps player engagement up. However, it does NOT speed up combat but does help keep it engaging as you may not always be the last or first to act. You have to keep up with who is in front of you and it is changing.