So I seem to find myself in a... Let's call it an overly deliberative group (comic related). We'll plan even the simplest mission to within an inch of its life, dragging the game's pace to a crawl.
Now I don't want to be the guy that hits the big red button just for the sake of causing things to happen, but I'd also like to get around to actually killing some monsters as opposed to just talking about it. Any good tactics for making that happen?
Just. Do. It.
I have a two or three players who will over plan everything. Once watched them spend over a half hour deciding the best way to open a door, stealthily or just go in swinging.
My theoretical approach is to allow a minute for everybody to plan on the first turn someone in the party acts, then I expect folks to know their actions* within fifteen seconds of their turn coming up and to work out details within another fifteen to sixty seconds, depending on the complexity of the action and whether subsequent actions are dependent on the results of prior actions. This means that high initiative PCs don't necessarily have to have twitch-thinking players but otherwise keeps things moving apace. Something that completely upends the state of combat (e.g., an earthquake drastically alters the battlefield) might warrant a reassessment period, or it might not.
In practice, my group has a lot of newer players so they get a lot of leeway. If we continue past the first book of this AP then maybe I can start instituting a timer.
*though not necessarily all of the details, such as which position to place each of their 1d4+1 summoned large elementals now that everybody moved enough to scuttle the original locations from a round ago
So the thread is more about "how do I get people to stop overplanning" if I'm reading it correctly.
Consider that:
* We don't know what you mean by overplanning; so if you think 30 seconds is too long or 30 minutes is too long is kinda undefined.
But! Either way, I would maybe approach this as a challenge or a request with something like "I'd like to implement a 2-minute timer for planning before we're forced to move on"
If the GM enforces this by just forcing the situation if they haven't chosen (advancing the plot; such as your party being discovered waiting outside the door, your party missing their chance to do a thing, a natural event, etc.)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I use a few trick that don't involve setting I timer which feels penal to me.
1) Monitor the conversation. I will say something to the effect of, "it seems like we caught between stealth and attacking let's vote."
2) Advance the story. The foot steps are getting further away, you hear weapons being drawn, you know day will break soon, the guards are about to do a sweep of the perimeter.
3) Give them planing missions with structure so they get the chance to play with these types of rules. Many pfs scenarion have cumulative points for planning tpp. The better your checks the easier the combat becomes. This can be setting traps, or collecting artifacts basically anything you want.
4) Talking creates noise. So the longer they do it the more chances someone will notice. Start making secret rolls they will get worried and move faster.
When I feel a player's taking too long for their turn, I start to count down (from five, normally, indicatign the 6-second-round). That tends to do the trick. I mostly use it when a player can't decide between multiple courses of action.
Also, when the players discuss the how they're going to be sneaky or how to prepare an ambush, I don't pause the game, and I'll also have their characters discuss what the players are discussion. Unless the characters are explicitly using some method of quiet conversation, enemies are likely to hear them.
I do the same concept when the players are joking around. My players tend to use similar sounding contemporary names for NPCs and sometimes PCs. A few sessions ago, I had an NPC react with anger when the players used a different name to address that NPC. It actually led to some awesome moment of roleplaying when one of the players were quick of though and had her PC explain to the NPC that said name was a word in the PCs native language meaning "revered mother"!
I've given up on planning. I've tried to discuss tactics between sessions, but my fellow players just don't seem to care.
Example from the last session: The Archmage didn't use a swift action to cast Knock on a PC who was shackled. He could have, but he didn't. He didn't even use a swift action.
What you describe has nothing to do with tactics, unless you knew beforehand that the PC was going to end up being shackled. Lack of tactics would be not moving into flanking position, the Fighter rushing forward to where the Wizard was bound to launch a Fireball, or not delaying the archer's turn until after the Summoner cast the obligatory Haste.
Knock can't even be used on creature-binding things like menacles anyway, but that's beside the point.
|
I've given up on planning. I've tried to discuss tactics between sessions, but my fellow players just don't seem to care.
Example from the last session: The Archmage didn't use a swift action to cast Knock on a PC who was shackled. He could have, but he didn't. He didn't even use a swift action.
What you describe has nothing to do with tactics, unless you knew beforehand that the PC was going to end up being shackled. Lack of tactics would be not moving into flanking position, the Fighter rushing forward to where the Wizard was bound to launch a Fireball, or not delaying the archer's turn until after the Summoner cast the obligatory Haste.
Knock can't even be used on creature-binding things like menacles anyway, but that's beside the point.
My bad. I misread the part where it says Knock can open shackles.
But yes, we knew the PC was shackled and we had at least a full week to prepare between sessions. The guy playing the Archmage didn't know that Wild Arcana only takes a swift action until we reminded him of that. And no, we're not overplanning.
Technically, knock literally only works on doors, boxes, and chests. There are many issues with this spell, but it's easier to simply ignore said issues than it is to elaborate on them.
Also, when the players discuss the how they're going to be sneaky or how to prepare an ambush, I don't pause the game, and I'll also have their characters discuss what the players are discussion. (...)
I do the same concept when the players are joking around. My players tend to use similar sounding contemporary names for NPCs and sometimes PCs. (...)
Very much this. I think it helps keep the plays in-universe and avoid random banter at the table (thus streamlining the game a bit and keeping immersion a tiny bit higher.)
I also like the idea of a count-down. I occasionally will do a "skip turn" thing if someone really can't decide what they're doing; then go back after the next player goes and see if they've figured it out (in combat.) This helps somewhat; though they feel jilted the first couple times. Implementing a count down would make this seem more fair though.
GrandLounge's points are all things I like to use as well.
I have a player who wants to do the "guns blazing" thing at every opportunity and has felt forced to go along with the crowd if they disagree with her. She often splits from the rest of the party to pursue her own agendas. I fear this will cause a real life problem at some point. The beginnings of that are starting to manifest.
It also loosens welds, shackles, or chains (provided they serve to hold something shut).Perhaps we are reading it two different ways but to me that clearly indicates the ability to open manacles/shackles. They hold the clasp/band (or whatever that portion of a manacle is called) shut.
The "welds, shackles, or chains" have to "serve to hold something shut". Manacles attatched to the door handles of a double swing door for instance could be removed with knock, but binding a person doesn't "hold something shut". You can't hold a person shut (except possibly the mouth I guess, i.e. with a gag), and thus Knock can't affect something binding a person.
But yes, we knew the PC was shackled and we had at least a full week to prepare between sessions. The guy playing the Archmage didn't know that Wild Arcana only takes a swift action until we reminded him of that. And no, we're not overplanning.
Maybe the archmage's player knew of this FAQ? If not, I'd say forgetting something is not lack of planning, but the other PC's not shouting some quick advice ("hey <archmage>, use your wild arcana to free <shackled player> with a swift Knock!") could be taken as that.
I have a player who wants to do the "guns blazing" thing at every opportunity and has felt forced to go along with the crowd if they disagree with her. She often splits from the rest of the party to pursue her own agendas. I fear this will cause a real life problem at some point. The beginnings of that are starting to manifest.
I'd advise to talk this over outside of the game. The first thing to do is find out what the actually, underlaying motivations are: Maybe the Leeroy-style player is merely annoyed with overplanning? Maybe she thinks a character of a certain class and/or alignment must mandatorily be played that way? And maybe the other players feel they need to plan every minutiae because they perceive the campaign to be too deadly otherwise? Or maybe they feel like characters with int above 7 must play every detail or something?
If it's really different prefered playstyles, I'd say have the whole group sit together and try to find a compromise.
@Derklord --
I've never really had to deal with this sort of thing in 30+ years of gaming with my group. I know it needs to be addressed but I'm still trying to figure out the best way to do it.
Admittedly I'm a planner - I love those elements of shows like Mission Impossible, The Italian Job, or Leverage where they accounted for little details.
I'd argue against the "Just Do It" mentality - one thing that has frustrated me a lot is one guy I sometimes play with that will take that approach. The quintessential example involves a game where our five person party was trying to infiltrate some enemy HQ and make a clean getaway; four of us spent half an hour coming up with a plan but were still working out smaller details when the fifth got bored and drove a car through the front door.
I can understand a player - and a character - getting bored. I'd expect something to force us to make a move when it is minor stuff left to resolve. What I don't want is for one person to *invalidate* the decisions of four people and make that half hour a complete waste of time.
@Derklord --
I have a player who wants to do the "guns blazing" thing at every opportunity and has felt forced to go along with the crowd if they disagree with her. She often splits from the rest of the party to pursue her own agendas. I fear this will cause a real life problem at some point. The beginnings of that are starting to manifest.(...)
I've never really had to deal with this sort of thing in 30+ years of gaming with my group. I know it needs to be addressed but I'm still trying to figure out the best way to do it.
Well, you've been around a lot longer than I have, but I'd consider a couple of approaches I'd use:
* Start a second mini-campaign of 2-3 players with her. You can use the two campaigns' interactions with the world to maybe create intrigue or otherwise. Certainly it'll help you keep the world alive around your players. Just literally let her split off, have a couple people roll up followers as she charismatically convinces a few people to join her and badda-bing! I've done something like this (and offered it to players)
* Have some situations that favor each approach. Have a chase scene where no planning can really occur, which favors her guns blazing approach. Then have a scene where the players can carefully navigate around an obviously-too-dangerous foe. Then have a scene where they are ambushed. Etc..
I tend to naturally build my encounters where some can be approached and some are ambushes, and some are player-folly; and the planners vs. the head-strong seem content since they get to each act in their preferred way at different times. Once waiting outside a Ratfolk cave debating their possibilities or deciding how to ambush something hunting them. other times being forced to chase a critter for a couple miles hopping and climbing, etc.
* She could play a character that requires planning to use effectively. The Wizard who isn't blasting often needs to coordinate to make his spells effective. This could be in addition to suggestion 1; where in one campaign she's running her gunslinger (or w/e) and blasting everything, and in the other she's carefully planning her approach while the others are figuring things out.
___________
IMO, attempt to turn this into an opportunity to spice things up rather than a problem to be solved.
EDIT: It could also be that your campaign isn't dangerous enough. My players tend to plan because when they don't, they often find themselves running away from what should've been a balanced or somewhat difficult encounter; rather than an impossible one. Being willing to kill your players if the dice go against them and/or if they do something obviously stupid is conducive to making them consider their approach.
I haven't killed any in my current campaign; but there's been a couple times they've had to run.
With the above, remember that 5% of encounters should be of the "nearly impossible" variety; several CR above them. If you do it in such a way that they are still making choices then they won't be frustrated, but rather they'll be relieved that their wits saw them through something terrifying
I'm actually working on one of those "5%" games right now. My games are pretty dangerous at times, but just as often there's a lot more roleplaying involved. You've given me some good food for thought, too. Thanks!
I roll things in secret and they just get nervous. Just kind of shrug at them and they start moving forward.
My group used to have this problem as well. The players sat down and thought out a "smart" plan, only to get it instantly foiled because they had missed some vital information. - This happened multiple times.
Now days, the players mostly have a quick talk to make sure everyone is on the same page and then goes in guns blazing - Works out much better.
I prefer the "quick talk, guns blazing" style myself. However, I think that the sensation of planning the heist is part of the fun for some players. For that reason, regardless of how long the planning takes, I like to "let it work" sometimes rather than giving in to the temptation of foiling the crucial hole in the players' plans. This might look like conveniently forgetting that the disguised character ought to be speaking in orcish or deciding that the fireball in the initial skirmish doesn't set the woods on fire. In that sense, it's less about forcing them to plan perfectly than giving them the sensation of planning perfectly.