Hey DangerDwarf you still post over at WOTC boards?
Spot checks slow the game down.
IF I call on one player for a spot check, then every one will want to make a spot check followed by a listen check. After a failed spot check players tend to start meta gaming and taking precautions they would not have otherwise. Every one wants a second spot check and a listen check before they do anything else.
Spot checks slow the game play.
If the other players want a spot check I say "Sure. Go ahead and roll." Of course I don't tell them that they aren't going to notice anything (because they are not facing the right direction, asleep, etc).
If they meta game beyond reason then I simply have them find something (a nasty random encounter or something stupid like a skunk in their bedroll). That teaches them quick.
|
The DM controls the pace of the game — always.
If the DM is heavy handed - sure. If the dynamic of the group allows it - sure.
But the group that sits at the table is not always going to enjoy themselves if the GM rams his or her control methods down their throats.
Being a DM is a social contract that must be accepted by everyone present or it will not work.
|
|
The DM controls the pace of the game — always.If the DM is heavy handed - sure. If the dynamic of the group allows it - sure.
But the group that sits at the table is not always going to enjoy themselves if the GM rams his or her control methods down their throats.
Being a DM is a social contract that must be accepted by everyone present or it will not work.
I agree wholeheartedly.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I have a player that threatens physical harm - AKA a wedgie - to anyone that dares throw obscuring mist in combat.Ooh, I found a rules item that massively slows the game down and we don't use as written.
Evard's Black Tentacles. What an insane spell! We have a gentleman's agreement not to use it.
Both of those are classic battlfield control spells though.
That said, I understand the hatred of them. I like the empowered version of obscuring mist in Arcana Evolved though.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 4
|
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but the hands-down, biggest thing that slows the game down for my group at high levels is Dispel Magic.
Additionally, I've found that the sum total of the following items really starts to grind the game to a halt. Individually, not a problem but taken together they add a lot of pain.
1.) Spell Resistance, especially for area-of-effect spells vs. several opponents.
2.) Concealment rolls of all stripes. (displacement, invisibility, incorporeality, darkness, etc.)
3.) Damage reduction and energy resistence vs. multiple damage types. Example, a creature with DR10/+2 and Fire Resistance 5 being fought by a character with a +1 flaming weapon.
4.) Aerial Combat, keeping track of altitude in addition to position. Figuring out distance of aerial combatants to landbound opponents. I will state for the record that in-combat trigonometry is "not fun."
5.) Immediate Actions, and effects that are "triggered" on someone else's turn. Fire Shield, the various "Holy Aura" type-spells. Contingencies are nice in theory but interruptions of the narrative/game flow have become bad news for me.
|
|
3.) Damage reduction and energy resistence vs. multiple damage types. Example, a creature with DR10/+2 and Fire Resistance 5 being fought by a character with a +1 flaming weapon.
Damage reduction with enhancement bonuses is a 3.0 rule, not 3.5. 3.5 changed that to DR/magic. That should help that a bit.
Low level play is not slow at all.
Once multiple attacks come in an critters get a multitude of combat options and special abilities the game slows down.
By the time 12th level rolls around there are far too many attack rolls and way too many monster special abilities.
Looking up spells can slow things down but mostly from the GM's side of things - and then its mostly high level play.
Oh, and initiative options like delay and ready - the shuffle of initiative can really slow things down.
And 4th Edition is supposed to do away with this? Isn't this just going to happen all over again in, say, 2 years once they sold enough splatbooks to keep their "target audience" happy and then we'll be hearing the same crap all over again we're hearing currently?
5th Edition, here we come!
|
|
@Sean Mahoney - I understand what you mean. I don't disagree that higher level play has more complexity that adds to game viscosity along with many of the factors listed in this thread. I agree it might be surprising to say otherwise. The off-setting factor is DM facilitation of those and other events-the key to fun flowing game sessions. I didn't mean to discount the spirit of this thread. Thanks for your comment.
@Crosswired - The DM controls through faciliation. A word that means 'to make easier.'
|
|
Low level play is not slow at all.
Once multiple attacks come in an critters get a multitude of combat options and special abilities the game slows down.
By the time 12th level rolls around there are far too many attack rolls and way too many monster special abilities.
Looking up spells can slow things down but mostly from the GM's side of things - and then its mostly high level play.
Oh, and initiative options like delay and ready - the shuffle of initiative can really slow things down.
And 4th Edition is supposed to do away with this? Isn't this just going to happen all over again in, say, 2 years once they sold enough splatbooks to keep their "target audience" happy and then we'll be hearing the same crap all over again we're hearing currently?
5th Edition, here we come!
Since you decided to pick on my post out of all of them then I am truly honored.
4E
1. no more multiple attacks
2. critters will have fewer abilities - just enough to give them their unique flavor
3. spells will always slow things down
4. since I do not know what they have planned for initiative - who knows?
So of the four points I have identified - 2 fixed 1 not fixed 1 ???
So far so good.
I have a player that threatens physical harm - AKA a wedgie - to anyone that dares throw obscuring mist in combat.
Awww. I love obscuring mist. Ever since I had a cleric that had it as a domain spell. I miss using that spell.
So of the four points I have identified - 2 fixed 1 not fixed 1 ???
Just because it is a favorite "go to" responce from "the other side of the fence," let me toss it back:
"The game hasn't been released yet. How can you make any opinions on a game that we know nothing about?"
In other words, how can you be sure 2 areas you consider a problem are fixed?
Iterative attacks for example, I thought the ability could still be purchased through feats/class abilities? You could still very well see it saturating your own game if it is considered powerful enough.
|
Just because it is a favorite "go to" responce from "the other side of the fence," let me toss it back:
"The game hasn't been released yet. How can you make any opinions on a game that we know nothing about?"
In other words, how can you be sure 2 areas you consider a problem are fixed?
Because they know better than us, silly!
Note how a post questioning a feature set mentioned may have words like, 'This could really suck if it works like X' or 'Gosh, I hope they didn't mean Y.' Note that the rebuttals state *decisively* that 'X *will* be better.' or 'Y will *not* work that way.'
We have two options;
1) They know thing we don't (and which the designers claim in many of their posts and podcasts *may not be finalized yet*), being visitors from the future who have seen the awesomeness that will be 4E, when it's done and released.
2) They are very comfortable making declaritive statements about something they haven't seen yet, and which the designers themselves admit hasn't been entirely finalized by the point of discussion, which would make them, well, not entirely truthful...
The argument seems to be, "I haven't seen it yet, but I can state that you are wrong, wrong, wrong for being concerned!"
|
|
Iterative attacks for example, I thought the ability could still be purchased through feats/class abilities? You could still very well see it saturating your own game if it is considered powerful enough.
I know what you are saying but my understanding is that multiple attacks are reserved for the fighter types and that they may use an alternative to the multiple roll problem.
That could very well be true...
But it brings up another "thorn." WotC claims that multi classing doesn't "hurt as much" anymore. So now you (probably) have to count on class dipping more than you ever did in 3.5.
So, let's say that only a Fighter can get a second attack, and can only get it a 6th level.
In 3.5, you could be fairly certain that most casters would never dip for that second attack.
But, in the proposed 4th Edition rules, 6 levels of Fighter won't hurt, and give you more than you were looking for.
It could be that this second attack "for everybody" will be more worthwhile than it ever was in 3.5.
Although, you have intrigued me with the thought of an alternative to multiple rolls... I just hope it isn't one roll, add different modifiers. That would swing the pendulum too far the other way... (If the first attack misses, the rest are definitely misses... If the first attack crits, they are all crits...) But I digress.
My biggest fear about 4th Edition is the WotC entity. Individual designers may very well be brilliant. Given a free hand, they could very well produce an "improved 3.X" that I could support as a good game even if I didn't like it. But I fear the WotC "design by committee," and "push the product out," design philosophies I have been picking up on will hurt 4th Edition more than anything else. I haven't gotten the sense that they are taking note of how their 3.5 fixes interact with each other yet.
Only a few more months until I get to see if my fears are justified.
|
|
I have a player that threatens physical harm - AKA a wedgie - to anyone that dares throw obscuring mist in combat.Ooh, I found a rules item that massively slows the game down and we don't use as written.
Evard's Black Tentacles. What an insane spell! We have a gentleman's agreement not to use it.
I've threatened someone that had a druid that kept throwing up entangle. Talk about slowing down an encounter.
|
|
I've threatened someone that had a druid that kept throwing up entangle. Talk about slowing down an encounter.I have a player that threatens physical harm - AKA a wedgie - to anyone that dares throw obscuring mist in combat.Ooh, I found a rules item that massively slows the game down and we don't use as written.
Evard's Black Tentacles. What an insane spell! We have a gentleman's agreement not to use it.
Yep. It can do that. But it can also make it very quick. I had a party entangle a Behir and then slaughtered it as it tried to escape.
In general any battlefield control spell will slow things down.
Our gaming group's main problem is lack of familiarity with all of the rules, forgetting rules or where to look them up, or confusing rules from earlier editions.
My choke-point, as DM, is trying to ferret through the ginormous stat blocks of monsters and villians. I generally miss a lot of a creatures abilities or equipment/spells. Do the blocks really have to be cluttered up with Perform(yoga) +12, Craft(jar making) +3, etc.?
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but the hands-down, biggest thing that slows the game down for my group at high levels is Dispel Magic.
Play at a high enough level, and nobody cares any more.
Since dispel magic is maxed at +20, once you're at a caster level of 20 or higher, it's worthless.
Then you're into the horrifying middle ground of Mordenkainen's disjunction, during the period where it can be cast by everyone but your saves aren't good enough to keep all your magic from going bye-bye.
And then you reach the zone where it's an auto dispel magic, but nobody ever loses items because their Will saves are high enough.
Frankly, I remain to be convinced that the +20 cap on dispel magic makes any sense. As a DM, I'd rather throw a dispel magic with a caster level of 30 than a Mordenkainen's disjunction and waste all of the party's magic items.
It's always my players slowing things down. The rules are the rules. They are there ALL the time to be read and understood, and yet few of them actually bother. That is forgiveable, as not everyone can aspire to the pinnacle of awesomeness that is being a DM, but really!
Usually it's players yacking during someone elses turn or something like that.
We just keep in mind that any large combat encounter wilbe a long one. We can do quick and dirty, but then when I lop off a head, the crying and whinig starts. Nowadays, our combat becomes a straight-up tactical affair.
We have our roleplaying/explortion phase, then when I bust out the "other" battlemat, the one with the REALLY detailed map showing all the stuff that is about to bury them.
My group consist of:
1 guy who simply has nothing else better to do, but is a good dude, so we let him sit in.
1 guy who starts every conversation with "I saw this one feat in this one book that lets you....."
2 power gamers
1 rules lawyer
2 frolicking unicorn chasers
Needless to say, I DM because none of them SHOULD. lol.
What the heck is a unicorn chaser?
In my experience, the big slow downs of any game are generally system indedpendent.
1) Lack of preparation (equally true for GM's and players)
2) Inability to make a decision (also true for GM's and players)
3) Not paying attention to the situation at hand (mostly relates to players)
I've played low level D&D and various rules-lite games that dragged because of the above reasons. I've also played high level D&D, Fringeworthy, Star Fleet Battles, HERO, and various other "complicated" games where sessions and combat went by quickly because everyone involved was prepared, knew the system, and paid attention so they could act promptly when it was their turn. Don't get me wrong, adding more rules complexity certainly creates speedbumps to play, but I think a lot more slowdown comes from shortfalls of the people at the table as opposed to the system at the table.
|
|
I know what you are saying but my understanding is that multiple attacks are reserved for the fighter types and that they may use an alternative to the multiple roll problem.
Iterative attacks for example, I thought the ability could still be purchased through feats/class abilities? You could still very well see it saturating your own game if it is considered powerful enough.
I hope they really meant it when they said that they were getting rid of iterative attacks to speed up the game, and don't negate the entire point of the exercise by allowing people to buy that option back with feats or class abilities.
That's one of the rare notions that I very much would like to see from 4th edition, is multiple attacks being replaced with a single attack with extra dice added on. (Perhaps also as a 'staged effect,' so that the number of dice that hit depend on how well you roll on that one attack roll, to minimize the 'all or nothing' effect.)
GURPS 4E did a wonderful thing in getting rid of Passive Defense, an unnecessary and redundant mechanic that vastly slowed down combat (and which all of the GURPS groups I hung with had already house ruled out of existence in almost all cases!). Then 4E added +3 to all defense rolls, *which completely freaking negated the point!* I was so pissed. It was like bait and switch.
I'm hoping D&D 4E doesn't do the same thing. They already pulled that crap with the 3.0 to 3.5 upgrade, claiming to be changing Damage Reduction to get rid of 'golf bag syndrome' and instead *created* the very problem they were talking about by creating seven or eight different weapon qualities needed to overcome specific forms of DR.
What the heck is a unicorn chaser?
in this particular case frolicking lesbians whom can't seem to make a character that is not some kind of Fey. Oh, and they wear fairie wings to all games too.
Wow. Could you a little more derogatory?What the heck is a unicorn chaser?in this particular case frolicking lesbians whom can't seem to make a character that is not some kind of Fey. Oh, and they wear fairie wings to all games too.'Course Donovan Vig could - didn't make any mention of age, race, or religion, right?
Not saying DV SHOULD, just that it COULD be done...
And though it may not be necessary information (sexual preference) that does not need to be added as a qualifier it is not derogatory in itself.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 4
|
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but the hands-down, biggest thing that slows the game down for my group at high levels is Dispel Magic.Play at a high enough level, and nobody cares any more.
Since dispel magic is maxed at +20, once you're at a caster level of 20 or higher, it's worthless.
Then you're into the horrifying middle ground of Mordenkainen's disjunction, during the period where it can be cast by everyone but your saves aren't good enough to keep all your magic from going bye-bye.
And then you reach the zone where it's an auto dispel magic, but nobody ever loses items because their Will saves are high enough.
Frankly, I remain to be convinced that the +20 cap on dispel magic makes any sense. As a DM, I'd rather throw a dispel magic with a caster level of 30 than a Mordenkainen's disjunction and waste all of the party's magic items.
My current high-level group is ~18th level, with several multiclass spellcasters. So the caster level ranges from 16-24 depending in the spell, whether Bead of Karma is in play, whether someone's using a [good] spell, etc.
I'm of a mind to House-Rule MD to work like an uncapped Targeted Dispel Magic (like Chain Dispel from PHB) that also affects items. That's still a lot of paperwork though. Couple levels to go before I care, I suppose.
|
|
In my experience as a player and DM, the game is often slowed down by looking up information during combat. This can range from the rules for a Bull Rush to re-reading setting description because a player needs to find a door or wants to jump on a three-legged table.
Changing editions or even RPGs doesn't affect this very much; players are always going to want to know how far away the bad guy is and what they have to do to bring down a wall on top of it; that's cool by me because it involves creative problem-solving.
The second most time-consuming problem is extra attack rolls for several players and almost all monsters beyond 6th level. From the bits of information trickling down, it sounds like this problem will be dealt with or at least lessened, which is ONE of the few changes I've heard that I am enthusiastic about. There might be new "powers" that allow a player extra attacks, but I don't anticipate it being as problematic as the old format of +6/+1, etc. Maybe I'm foolishly optimistic about this ONE change, because I haven't read any more than the average forums browser.
On the subject of 4th Ed. and game-slowing, I have to wonder about this new "combat advantage" mechanic. Will combat advantage always go to the faster PCs/monsters (making Dexterity even more the ability score of heroes), or will it switch round-by-round or even turn-by-turn, and require its own bookkeeping line next to initiative? I suppose I'll have to read more to find out.
Wow. Could you a little more derogatory?What the heck is a unicorn chaser?in this particular case frolicking lesbians whom can't seem to make a character that is not some kind of Fey. Oh, and they wear fairie wings to all games too.
well they ARE lesbians. They DO frolick. I suppose the fairie wings thing could be considered insulting to us non-winged folk...but I consider myself above jealousy of our quasi-winged bretheren - or is it sisterethem?
Really though, no insult meant to any folks engaged in non-traditional relationships, I just call a spade a spade - no sense in being all weird about it, it is what it is.
Oh...and they really DO frolick. Knocked my screen over last game and spilled coke on my notes. Darned unicorn chasers.
I just call a spade a spade -Yes, you can be more derogatory.
well i dont see how it is derogtory ive been the same places vig has it seems lol groups like that tend to be fun if a little out of hand just dont see an issue with how he said it
I just call a spade a spade -Yes, you can be more derogatory.
Would you prefer Diamonds, Hearts, or Clubs instead?
well in any event CWM, I did not INTEND to be derogatory. If that was so, I would have called them D**es. Being as one of them is my little sister, that was not an option. Besides, my male gay player would freak and probably leave the group.
I've already apologized for any UNINTENDED insult. IMO being overly PC has slowed this "game" down.
|
|
well i dont see how it is derogtory ive been the same places vig has it seems lol groups like that tend to be fun if a little out of hand just dont see an issue with how he said itI just call a spade a spade -Yes, you can be more derogatory.
spade is a derogatory term for someone who is black. The phrase "to call a spade a spade" was coined to insult blacks.
So, yes that is derogatory.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
well i dont see how it is derogtory ive been the same places vig has it seems lol groups like that tend to be fun if a little out of hand just dont see an issue with how he said itI just call a spade a spade -Yes, you can be more derogatory.spade is a derogatory term for someone who is black. The phrase "to call a spade a spade" was coined to insult blacks.
So, yes that is derogatory.
That may be its origin, but the phrase has evolved past that and is currently used by people of all cultures. Heck, I've even heard politicians use it during campaigning.
The statement itself is not derogatory. The intent of its user can make it insulting, though (which is true of any word, really).
Donovan's intent here was not to insult. In any case, you made your opinion known regarding DV's choice of words several posts ago. You are now choosing to be obtuse and are belaboring your point for reasons unknown.
Can we return to the topic of the Original Post and stop nitpicking about the choice of words or phrases in posts of people we may disagree with?
Thanks!
1. Players who don't pay attention and need to be updated when it gets to their turn. (This is a vicious cycle. The longer it takes to get to your turn, the more time you have to get bored and distracted.)
2. Looking up spell discriptions to double check interactions.
3. Grapple, because nobody I've gamed with knows it well. This would seem self-solving, though. If you grapple enough, you'd learn the rules. Thing is, in my games, players only ever want to break grapples and get free, since grappling monsters have the advantage in grapple.
4. Anything involving a chart that can't be memorized. Turn undead. Encumbrance. Sunder (because of item hit points.) Especially when it forces arguments over things that weren't important at the time they were decided. (Is my +2 Shield wood or steel? Is my mace wood or metal hafted? Why isn't there an entry for two-handed metal hafted weapon?)
In my experience, the big slow downs of any game are generally system indedpendent.
1) Lack of preparation (equally true for GM's and players)
2) Inability to make a decision (also true for GM's and players)
3) Not paying attention to the situation at hand (mostly relates to players).
Yes, the three killers that no amount of rules rewrites can address. Which is why I don't believe 4e will be faster in the slightest. 3e seemed to move like greased lighting when it first came out compared to 2e, however it wasn't log for it clogged with options and the indecisiveness made it's way back into the game. 4e will slide like the skeleton(sport) until it to bogs down with per encounter, reactive, and multitudes of options.
Occasionally rules look-ups for rules such as grappling(or other less used sub-systems) or a spell description. However those are growing less frequent by having people write down the Page Number for spells/abilities/combat-options. Additionally passing the PHB to the next person in sequence if needed, which is happening a lot in the current game, and prepping your action before it's your turn as a player.
Know the rules, be prepared. It's that easy.
Only two things in my sessions makes the game slow:
1) Inattentive players
2) Players who, after years of playing, still can't figure out how the basic rules to the game (because they're so inattentive, or just hate reading books)
|
5. players who are only wanting to play because there friends or bf/gf's are playing, but have no want to play the game or learn the game
My G/F plays on occasion. We taught her "when your figure is in a square next to a bad guy, hit it with your mace. otherwise, shoot your crossbow and heal people when they ask for it" (She wanted to be a cleric)
Edit: oh and her 'the floor song' stops and makes everyone laugh too
"I'm the cleric and I am
looking at the floor
floor floor floor floor
because the bad guy hit me and
I'm bleeding on the floor
floor floor floor floor
and my blood is pooling
getting in my eyes on the floor
floor floor floor floor"
That was her AOW song whenever she went into negatives - it went on for at least 20 minutes.
|
|
well i dont see how it is derogtory ive been the same places vig has it seems lol groups like that tend to be fun if a little out of hand just dont see an issue with how he said itI just call a spade a spade -Yes, you can be more derogatory.spade is a derogatory term for someone who is black. The phrase "to call a spade a spade" was coined to insult blacks.
So, yes that is derogatory.
That may be its origin, but the phrase has evolved past that and is currently used by people of all cultures. Heck, I've even heard politicians use it during campaigning.
The statement itself is not derogatory. The intent of its user can make it insulting, though (which is true of any word, really).
Donovan's intent here was not to insult. In any case, you made your opinion known regarding DV's choice of words several posts ago. You are now choosing to be obtuse and are belaboring your point for reasons unknown.
Can we return to the topic of the Original Post and stop nitpicking about the choice of words or phrases in posts of people we may disagree with?
Thanks!
That wasn't the phrase's origin. It doesn't matter if it was. Once someone says something was derogatory, they have made it known that original speaker of the offending words is not allowed to continue to express themselves and can only be viewed as an intellectual inferior.
To the topic at hand: Lack of preparation by DM and players alike combined with a large variety of converging rules contributes to most of the game slow downs I have encountered. Besides the occasional out of game confab.
|
|
That wasn't the phrase's origin. It doesn't matter if it was. Once someone says something was derogatory, they have made it known that original speaker of the offending words is not allowed to continue to express themselves and can only be viewed as an intellectual inferior.
To completely kill the argument over word choice Here is a link abotu the actual origins of the phase
Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion....
I also roll listen/spot and certain knowledge checks(as that little nag on your brain) for my PCs behind the screen and only tell them if they succeed. I also roll up stats for future encounters while they discuss tactics, thus preventing them from knowing what dice mean a skill chack and which is the next familiar being written down.
I've threatened someone that had a druid that kept throwing up entangle. Talk about slowing down an encounter.I have a player that threatens physical harm - AKA a wedgie - to anyone that dares throw obscuring mist in combat.Ooh, I found a rules item that massively slows the game down and we don't use as written.
Evard's Black Tentacles. What an insane spell! We have a gentleman's agreement not to use it.
Actually, the druid in my gaming group used Entangle on a group of charging trolls. As DM, I simplified things myself (I don't need WotC telling me what to do, as they are with 4E) by making one Reflex save to see if they fail or pass for the whole group, and one Strength check roll to see if they escape in later rounds.
This sped up play from my end with the monsters and made my players not only praise the druid for saving their asses (because the trolls would've, it was a overwhelming encounter) but the players got to win and had their fun by beating up on entangled trolls.
What would've slowed that game to a crawl is if those trolls met face-to-face with the PCs. In such a scenario, entangle actually made the battle much faster and not slower.
spade is a derogatory term for someone who is black. The phrase "to call a spade a spade" was coined to insult blacks.
So, yes that is derogatory.
Not according to this (take it as you will):
To call a spade a spade