A bit wordy for the holidays, but I blame tooo much turkey and the terrible NYj / Patriot game.... hehe
Ever have your PCs suffer from the the "Mother of table time momentum killers"? We all on occasion stop to consider our options, but when does evaluation become indecision?
It seems, IMO, less of an impactor if your PC group is small, or if the style is more casual, but if you have a medium to large group (5-8 players) then encounters can consume large amounts of table time if Presto the Wizard constantly consults the PHB for the best application of Spell xyz. I take less issue (IMC) with PHB reference, IF PCs aren't waiting till their initiative to do such "spot" research.
No offense to "hairlings", but this seems more prone to their style of play... perhaps a bleed over from not having a "pause" button as in computerized roleplay?
First the ground rules.
IMC PCs roll initiative separately, and the encounter "monsters" have a group initiative EXCEPT their Leader(if there is one), whom I treat as the PCs.
Anyway, so as not to single out any player. I am considering an "AP" roll.
The player would take a 1d10 + the closest appropriated 1d? rounding down that would equal their total initiative. The sum of the two die would re-determine there NEW int from hesitation. If there original int was less than 10 then the next closest LOWER die would recalculate the new int.
For example, if Ianna the Elven Fighter has an initiative of 16, and as the int winds down to her turn, she, (for whatever reason) cannot decide to attack the orc 15 to her flank on the left, or seek cover to the right, I prose implementing a "modifier" to her initiative. with a 16 she would re-roll a 1d6 and a 1d10 adding the result to determine her "new" initiative for lack of responsive action.
I have considered just using "cause the DM Said" and reducing int, but this takes the burden off me and even as a hairling myself (YES LOOONNNG Ago) I never liked cause I said so ...for an answer to anything.
Further, it creates the possibility of randomizing a degree of hesitation to those PCs whose players hesitate too frequently from no impact to near loss of int depending on the new result.
I think after a few applications, this would become the exception than the norm....
Thoughts? How do my friendly neighborhood GreyHawkers manage A-P in their campaigns...
I think you just made it too complex. I would have player take turns rolling for the party initiative, as you, the DM, roll once for the enemy Initiative. Those rolls are then modified by individual Initiative bonuses, whatever.
And yes, the Patriots-Jets game was brutal. Teebow time anyone? Perhaps, but they better get a bunch of Teebows, as the whole Jets team was playing Keystone Cops for most of this game. Somebody set that game footage to some Benny Hill music already. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Harsh words; players, you've got one character to look after for love of Nerull. How can it be so hard to have a decent comprehension of one character's abilities?
I'm sitting over here with 12 Orcs, an evil Illusionist, his Quasit, and a further 6 Orcs with a Shaman attached on the way in round 4. Quit your whingy "Oh, I just don't know what to do," hand wringing and sort your life out.
Which often comes out as "as far as I'm concerned you're Delaying. Let me know when you want to act. Who's next?"
And yes, the Patriots-Jets game was brutal. Teebow time anyone? Perhaps, but they better get a bunch of Teebows, as the whole Jets team was playing Keystone Cops for most of this game. Somebody set that game footage to some Benny Hill music already.
ROFLMAO!!!!!
YES!!! Thought exactly that
At what point do you say "Sanchez Time" is over??? I'm not a fan of either, but come on... you ACTIVELY went after Tebow to have him and NOT USE HIM??? hummmm Seems that Dallas is not the only team with POOR Management and coaching. GO TEXANS....
We suffer from chronic AP in our games and so we implemented a maybe harsh 10 second rule. When it reaches thier initiative score (we roll indivisually for players) the players have 10 seconds to decide what they are doing. Obviously they've had the whole time it has been someone else's go to plan their actions as well.
There is flexibility in this - the player might have a question to ask before making a final decision but generally they are pushed to decide quickly.
This often leads to mistakes or snap decisions but I love that in the heat of battle poor decisions or knee-jerk reactions might be made, a misplaced fireball catching an ally or a fighter running into the way without thinking.
If the player is still dilly-dallying after 10 seconds they miss their go through indecision.
I think you just made it too complex. I would have player take turns rolling for the party initiative, as you, the DM, roll once for the enemy Initiative. Those rolls are then modified by individual Initiative bonuses, whatever.
Ragr wrote:
Harsh words; players, you've got one character to look after for love of Nerull. How can it be so hard to have a decent comprehension of one character's abilities?
Big C... I hear yea
To better clarify to all, I have two PCs with 10yrs experience with "my style" of DMing and game Play (mainly 2e) and now after last years return to the table, I now also have six 3.5e Hairlings. So this "A-P" is not isolated to 1 player.
As to one roll for int and adjust.. I agree its easier, BUT on the re-birth of MC last year, I visited this and other "Home Rules" before we started. Offering that and other variant "rolling types"... ie totally having a PC generated int system. BUT My Players LOVE their Dice. and in the big scheme of things it seemed a small compromise.
IF I decide to implement A-P rolls, I don't look for that to last long...sure it may be painful and consume some time at the moment, but I think in long run it may improve and better prepare my players in the long run.
Ragr wrote:
I'm sitting over here with 12 Orcs, an evil Illusionist, his Quasit, and a further 6 Orcs with a Shaman attached on the way in round 4. Quit your whingy "Oh, I just don't know what to do," hand wringing and sort your life out.
There is flexibility in this - the player might have a question to ask before making a final decision but generally they are pushed to decide quickly.
This often leads to mistakes or snap decisions but I love that in the heat of battle poor decisions or knee-jerk reactions might be made, a misplaced fireball catching an ally or a fighter running into the way without thinking.
I Agree, and I think this further enforces "Realism" for those that think the game is not mimicking "real world" situations and tactics.....
I guess the "A-P" syndrome creeps into my campaigns, too, but perhaps not so much that it completely stalls out the adventure. Both my player and I typically control several PCs at once, so that can cause some delay, especially when you have spell-casters and myriad potential spells at your disposal. Since he and I both have numerous books with more and more spell options adding to our lists (PHB, Tome of Magic, Spells & Magic, etc), we often have to flip through to make sure that we have the correct spell in mind, or it's in the domain of our caster, or to verify a description. It's not so much a case of "Analysis Paralysis" but verification and confirmation.
-Lanthorn
Last edited by Lanthorn on Fri Nov 23, 2012 9:54 am; edited 1 time in total
Harsh words; players, you've got one character to look after for love of Nerull. How can it be so hard to have a decent comprehension of one character's abilities?
I'm sitting over here with 12 Orcs, an evil Illusionist, his Quasit, and a further 6 Orcs with a Shaman attached on the way in round 4. Quit your whingy "Oh, I just don't know what to do," hand wringing and sort your life out.
Which often comes out as "as far as I'm concerned you're Delaying. Let me know when you want to act. Who's next?"
4e here. Yeah, I think this approach is the best for someone like me. Delaying is not too harsh -- they may miss out on a tactical opportunity -- but sends the message that they need to pull their heads out and get with the program. Totally agree with your harsh words.
Gary Gygax, in Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 71, wrote:
Actions During Combat And Similar Time-Important Situations:
The activity of player characters and player character-directed creatures must be stated precisely and without delay at the start of each melee round or before the appropriate divisions of other situations where exact activity must be known. If you are a stickler, you may require all participants to write their actions on paper. Conversation regarding such activities is the same as if player characters were talking aloud, of course.
Delay in deciding what is to be done should be noted, as such hesitation will basically mean that the individual is not doing anything whatsoever during the period, but he or she is simply standing by and dithering, trying to arrive at a decision as to what should be done. Considering the melee round as 1 full minute, actually time a participant, and you will see what is meant . . . .
When I come to your turn, if you take 12 seconds to make up your mind, your action will come 2 segments later in the round.
Though, in a large group setting of 5+ people, I can see why this becomes important or it takes forever. That said, I must admit that when running multiple characters (as PC or DM) even one combat one can take half an hour, especially where spells are concerned.
I have less of a "complaint" with a combat lasting "long". Some epic large scale battles could take hours to resolve (old school wargamer coming out here). It is just my hope to get the "newer players" proactively thinking BEFORE their int turn arrives...
All of my players only manage ONE character in a game session. They have two, in two different groups, that currently don't interact due to level differences (3rd vs 6-8).
LOL but hey I REALLY have to agree with RAGR.... their 16 to my WORLD...
I do agree with others, asking for clarifications or details is evaluating, not indecision.
To take a slant on "A-P" what are the communities thoughts around having the players solve for puzzles versus having the Character utilize a skill to overcome it?
IF you create a cipher or logic problem, (as existed in many early modules) should the player solve the problem to earn the EXP or can the Character "solve" if via a skill check?
I can see the "analysis" going both ways on this.. All would have to agree that some of us are much better (or worse) athletes or test takers, public-speakers, etc, but unlikely are we Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, or Alexander the Great. It is possible, however, that our characters could be. Do we (as DMs) then reveal plot elements, opponent tactics, etc, if a clever Player utilizes his PCs Ability traits and skills (depending on version here) to enhance player shortcomings via rolls?
I set these thoughts adrift into the current that is the well of collective knowledge......
Ciphers and puzzles is another good topic - I try and encourage my players to solve them themselves but as you say the abilties of some players may not match up to the ability scores of their characters. In those cases I'd allow the player to make an ability roll to gain a clue or pointer perhaps (an insight they have gleaned that a less able character might not have).
In some instances if they still can't get it I'd allow an ability check to solve the puzzle or cipher. I would impose an xp penalty for solving it though and let the players know that if they take the easy option that would be the case.
-... I try and encourage my players to solve them themselves but as you say the abilties of some players may not match up to the ability scores of their characters...
In some instances if they still can't get it I'd allow an ability check to solve the puzzle or cipher. I would impose an xp penalty for solving it though and let the players know that if they take the easy option that would be the case.
Interesting.... but.... would this position discourage players from putting skill points / ranks in problem solving traits knowing they would be penalized for utilizing them? (assuming a 3.5 or later edition play style here)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises