I run my 4e game twice a month for approx. 4 hours at a time. With 6 players, we typcially can get through 2 combat encounters per session. I am looking for ideas on how to speed that up a bit. When I create the combat encounters I typcially make them of equal or 1 level higher than the party.
I have been thinking of lowering the levels of the encounters, but am concerned with that reducing the challenge. Does anyone have any advice on speeding up combat?
No, that level should work well without it getting too easy. So, what's the party's make-up? It might just be they don't have enough damage to to take something out in a timely manner.
They are:
Half-Orc Fighter-Doomguard Marauder (Built Striker-ish)
Half-Orc Spiked-Chain/Thrown Dagger Ranger-Avalanche Hurler
Dragonborn Barbarian-Scion of Arkhosia
Deva Cleric-Miracle Worker
Human Invoker-Angelic Aspect
Elf Seeker-Twilight Guardian
All are 12th level. I also have a NPC Fighter who does contribute to the combat, but she is not optimized, she's there as a guide.
|
We've been toying around with the idea of using a stopwatch to keep people's turns moving, with some type of reward if you keep your turns under a certain average (with a little extra time given to leaders, who may need to assess the other PC's conditions as part of their turn). We haven't gotten around to implementing it, though. People really need to pay attention and have a plan as to what they are going to do in advance.
The DM's turn can be sped up by having players track more of the conditions, and by having a player track initiative as well.
That said, my group tends to get through about 2 combats in a 4 hour session, so I think what you are finding is typical.
I also agree with Davi - if the party is light on strikers, that may also make the combats drag. (Edit: Just saw your post. The party is so-so on strikers, so that's probably not the main cause of the problem.)
The latest World-Wide Game Day event was 3 combats and 1 skill challenge and it was done in 4 hours, so I was curious what the difference was and see if I could improve on our time management.
Does anyone have experience with minimizing Soldiers and Brutes as a way to speed up combat?
That is about the time my encounters generally take as well. To me, about ninety minutes to two hours per battle is the normal time an 4e encounter will take (overall).
If you are looking for ways for speeding up combat these are my suggestions:
1. Have everyone have all their powers printed out or even written down. Anything so that they don't have to go flipping through a book during their turn.
2. Give players rewards for completing turns quickly.
After two minutes, their turn was over even if they still had actions left.
If they spent an action point, they would get a point for finishing under two minutes, and their turn didn't end until three minutes were up. If they still managed to finish under a minute, they got an additional point.
3. Make it clear that you can't have a conversation with someone else while playing. If they are talking with a random person about Magic: The Gathering, just skip their turn.
4. Ban powers that are not used during a players turn if they are taking too much time with them. Tell them to choose other powers.
5. Move on before the current action is done. If the cleric finishes his turn by declaring that they were healing some party member, just move to the next person in initiative, don't wait for them to finish their turn. When the fighter takes an opportunity attack against an enemy, move on to another enemy's action or just keep taking they attacked enemy's turn (and correct yourself if the attack killed the enemy or otherwise made it's action impossible).
6. Let players track enemy hit points, defenses, resistances, and such. I gave each of the players a scrap of paper with spaces for all these bits of enemy information. Then when a player was attacking an enemy, after making sure that the attack didn't require any interaction from me, the attacking player could just ask the player with the enemies information if the attack hit and how much damage it did. This way I could more easily be handling the next turn.
Edit:
7. I remember some long post from EN World that gave a lot of advice on combating grind (which is sometimes a big cause of slow combat). It gave a good chunk of advice like avoiding using monsters that are higher level than the party (instead than having more monsters), adding terrain that deals and/or boosts damage so hit points drop faster, and having enemies run away when they have lost (even though it might take another half an hour to kill them).
I have seem some opinions stating that lowering hit points of the creatures, and increasing the damage output, keeps combat interesting, but helps weed out longer combats with brutes, etc.
You can add in additional ideas related to skills or skill challenges to influence combat, for instance intimidate against bloodied foes, moral checks, etc.
As a house rule, which probably does not help you, is burning healing surges to allow mutliple uses of encounter or daily powers (1 surge for encounter and 2 for daily). This includes magic items as well, but does not apply to racial powers.
There are some similar posts under the 4E section, to help streamline combat.
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 4th Edition / Archives / Speeding up 4e encounters?
The latest World-Wide Game Day event was 3 combats and 1 skill challenge and it was done in 4 hours, so I was curious what the difference was and see if I could improve on our time management.
Does anyone have experience with minimizing Soldiers and Brutes as a way to speed up combat?
I believe that it is, in part due to the difference in level. At higher level, they have more options to consider, more interrupts, more numbers to add together, and just more constant abilities to consider.
I think its definitely a combination of the players knowing their characters well enough, the level that they're at, having them keeping track of somethings, and planning ahead of time. When I played at paragon level, things moved much slower (of course), so it only gets worse as you gain levels.
I'm going to agree with the majority here. 2 combats in 4 hours is fairly reasonable especially for a higher level group. There are things you can do to speed combat up including aspects of encounter design to minimize grind or party design to do the same (more strikers is good, more defenders is bad).
All of that said I don't think most of the actions are going to substantially improve things to much in terms of getting much more then 2 combats in a 4 hour period from higher level characters. Whats really important IMO is that players and the DM can perform their actions quickly and efficiently during their turn so that people don't have a lot of 'dead' time where they are just waiting while some one makes up their mind on what to do. Remove that dead time and the game will feel full and action packed and that's pretty key to having fun at the table.
As a player I don't mind if a fun combat takes a while but I do get unhappy if the other players are so slow that it never seems to either be my turn nor is there anything going on to engage me (such as enemies dieing or being shifted or some such). Essentially if everyone is zipping through their turn at a good pace then its all good.
I very much agree with those that point out that every bit of record keeping that can be downloaded onto the players should be - they should be tracking conditions, how much damage has been done to which enemies, the initiative order and when a new player starts a turn the player after that (or the DM) should be informed that they are 'on deck' and should be preparing for their turn so that they know exactly what they are going to do when the current player finishes.
I note from your groups make up that the group is both larger and higher level, both of those will slow things down somewhat.
|
If you haven't already, pre-draw the maps. I use 1" grid easel pad (http://www.officedepot.com/a/products/409528/Office-Depot-Brand-Recycled-B leed-Blocker/). A little colored pencils, and a few well-placed dwarven forge pieces and the encounter is good to go.
Another idea is for players to think and act faster. Discuss it with the players, but basically start with easier encounters, and do the following: Have them declare all their actions at the start of their initiative (I use a move action to move closer to my ally, use a minor action to shout an Inspiring Word to the ally, then a standard action to use Commander's Strike on the Orc), then have them resolve it. If they can't articulate it they "Delay", and the next player in initiative goes. Once the players get the hang of it, it goes pretty quick.
Encounters rarely take less than 1 hour. 2 hours can be from table chat, a larger group, newer players, or tough encounters.
Ask yourself, which is better:
1 - 4 mediocre encounters rushed through 4 hours of play
or
2 - 2 great encounters executed carefully through 4 hours of play?
Since I've shortened our play time from 6 to 3 hours and increased frequency from every other week to every week, the players are more engaged. They remember the story better and I can focus on a couple of encounters and make them more memorable.
My group plays for 3 hours on Friday nights. I plan each session as one of three options
1) 3 fast, easy encounters 1 hour each (e.g. a couple of Giant Wasps)
2) 2 average encounters 1.5 hours each (e.g. a bandit ambush in the forest)
3) 1 hard encounter (the proverbial BBEG)
Thank-you all for the advice, and the assurance that we seem to be typical. I'm not sure I can squeeze a 3rd encounter out of the evening but I'll try out some of the tips found here.
Thought no one is bored and we all have a good time, I just want to make sure the game isn't creeping along too slow.
We run 3-4 combats in a 5ish hour session.
Run more easy encounters. They're fun for the players, they're quick, and they get you through milestones. I try to keep a 1:2:1 ratio for easy:medium:hard encounters.
Often, I find that interesting terrain and effects are more fun than adding more monsters to a fight. They're also a lot quicker at the table.
Also, I see you're at paragon tier. From my experience, I find that combat does slow a bit as you move up in levels. People have more options, and it's quite a bit harder to damage the enemies.
|
|
I agree with Paul wrt terrain: Interesting terrain makes for more memorable/harder encounters than simply tougher/more creatures. Thats why I recommend pre-drawing the encounter on a battlemap (or the paper I recommended above). In the process of doing so, think about the encounter, the movement of the enemies/PCs, hidden traps, and what I call encounter triggers.
When drawing I like to think of the encounter in 3 distinct phases:
1) Revelation
2) Reconsider
3) Resolution
(The three R's of encounters)
1) Revelation: Perception check, knowledge checks, etc that reveal the encounter. Encounter distances are determined, and initial movement and engagement occurs in this phase. If you describe minions rather than reveal them outright these is the phase where the players test their theories as to which are minions, brutes, etc. (these skeletons where rusty bits of armor, a few even have numerous bones missing. Their weapons look dull and rusty as well. THESE skeletons over here, however, wear better looking armor and weapons, are mostly intact, and it seems you could see the eldritch energies holding them together if only you could get the right angle...)This is also where you as the DM introduce the key powers of the enemies. Goblins and kobold hop away using their racial abilities, hobgoblins form ranks, etc. This phase determines the BATTLE LINE. The Battle Line is where the defenders and soldiers meet and typically lock down. This is important. Placement of the battle line determines the range for the artillery/archer types. If the range is such that the artillery can take advantage of cover bonus, but it can be such that the ranged types have to move out of cover in order to reach the battle line with their attacks, thereby exposing them. Design the encounter with these concepts in mind: Where is the likely battle line (given move rates, where are likely melee types to meet?) Where should I place cover for ranged people (pc and enemy), what kind of obstacles do I need to impede movement so PCs don't flank BBEG too easily, etc.
2) Reconsider: In this phase things change. A memorable battle usually has that element of the unexpected - new solo monster design incorporates this concept with improved attacks at bloodied, but you could do this in other ways. You could introduce a wave(s) of minions such that the PCs have to do a skill challenge to close the drawbridge/gates/doors. You could have the BBEG reveal his uber-power the PCs weren't expecting (a zone that nullifies necrotic resistance the PCs may have by 5/10/15). You could have the terrain itself change. Archers in the back field unleash firey arrows that light the field on fire, introducing an unexpected hazard, etc. It could be a simple change such as the leader shouts a command and the enemies focus fire on the healer, for example.
3) Resolution: Essentially this is the slog to the finish, but a very well crafted encounter allows for the PCs to introduce their own surprises that are contextual to the encounter that can end it quicker than usual. Here, as DM it's difficult to plan ahead for, but during the session you invoke the rule of YES. For example, the PCs, with fire erupting from the fields all around them (from the reconsider phase above) decide to start bull rushing enemies into the fire. Great idea, but make it even better for them and introduce something else, like the enemies may panic and flee or begin a tactical withdraw. The ide is to reward them for their "clever" tactics. Ostensibly the resolution phase ends when encounter is over, but rather than force players to slog the last few hit points of what is clearly a victory, and rather than simply declare the battle over by DM fiat, have something the PCs do to end it. That is the spirit of the resolution phase.
Happy Gaming
That is some great insight on how to create 4E encounters Stedd. I am curious what you used as a reference, or is that just your experience when stating the 3R method.
|
|
That is some great insight on how to create 4E encounters Stedd. I am curious what you used as a reference, or is that just your experience when stating the 3R method.
I made it up...its simply what is in my head when I design/draw an encounter.
No magic in 3 parts either. Think of it like a story: introduction/body/conclusion. In every part have obstacles: terrain and creatures; some visible some "hidden".
BTW, as an aside, minion archers are devastating. Keep them out of range of a double move initially, spread them to the edges of the battlemap, and throw a "scary" critter in the center. 9 times out of 10 the PCs head for the big nasty and ignore the minions. Include focused fire and you are about to clean PCs clocks with the steady drip drip of HPs. I had such an encounter, I added a leader type archer as well, shouting out orders, designating targets. Each round I bloodied or dropped a PC with those minions (10 attacks at 5 hp, avg 25 hp per round...ouch!). I had notes indicating that if the Archer Leader died, the minions would flee i there were no other melee forces left or would choose random targets thereby spreading the hurt. The PCs suffered greatly since they dropped the Archer leader last! To add injury to insult, one Player kept saying "I think we should get that commander who keeps shouting orders!" but his movement sucked, and the leader simply stayed out of his way while the other PCs ignored him. Very cool encounter. (It also included the order of "Flame Arrows" to a pitch soaked bit of open area as hinted at in my above post)
When drawing I like to think of the encounter in 3 distinct phases:
1) Revelation
2) Reconsider
3) Resolution
That's absolutely great, Stedd. I'm gonna try that method when I write the encounters for my next session.
|
I run my 4e game twice a month for approx. 4 hours at a time. With 6 players, we typcially can get through 2 combat encounters per session. I am looking for ideas on how to speed that up a bit. When I create the combat encounters I typcially make them of equal or 1 level higher than the party.
I have been thinking of lowering the levels of the encounters, but am concerned with that reducing the challenge. Does anyone have any advice on speeding up combat?
How much of the 4 hours is actually taken up with the combat encounters?
Curious,
S.
How much of the 4 hours is actually taken up with the combat encounters?
Curious,
S.
Other than BS time, usually all of it or close to it. Say the group is in the middle of a 'dungeon', we still only get 2 encounters done in the time period. I have had times where we get to 3 encounters and once where we only did one (a big three-way battle between the players and 2 other groups in a free-for-all fight), but the average amount is 2.
That is some great insight on how to create 4E encounters Stedd. I am curious what you used as a reference, or is that just your experience when stating the 3R method.I made it up...its simply what is in my head when I design/draw an encounter.
No magic in 3 parts either. Think of it like a story: introduction/body/conclusion. In every part have obstacles: terrain and creatures; some visible some "hidden".
BTW, as an aside, minion archers are devastating. Keep them out of range of a double move initially, spread them to the edges of the battlemap, and throw a "scary" critter in the center. 9 times out of 10 the PCs head for the big nasty and ignore the minions. Include focused fire and you are about to clean PCs clocks with the steady drip drip of HPs. I had such an encounter, I added a leader type archer as well, shouting out orders, designating targets. Each round I bloodied or dropped a PC with those minions (10 attacks at 5 hp, avg 25 hp per round...ouch!). I had notes indicating that if the Archer Leader died, the minions would flee i there were no other melee forces left or would choose random targets thereby spreading the hurt. The PCs suffered greatly since they dropped the Archer leader last! To add injury to insult, one Player kept saying "I think we should get that commander who keeps shouting orders!" but his movement sucked, and the leader simply stayed out of his way while the other PCs ignored him. Very cool encounter. (It also included the order of "Flame Arrows" to a pitch soaked bit of open area as hinted at in my above post)
Although I didn't use your practices to design a previous encounter, I can attest to the effectiveness of archer minions. I created a similar enounter in an oriental campaign inside a chinese necropolis (burial ground) where the PCs were looking through mutliple tombs in search of a hopping vampire. Their activities drew attention from the local guardians, i.e. naggas. I sent a brute naga at the main party with a great sword and spitting venom. They were so focused on taking it out, they did not pay head to the naga archer minions behind it. It turned so quickly, they had to allow the brute inside the burial chamber and force the door shut, before the archers did further damage.
In the same scenario, they did find where the hopping vampire was located inside a padagoa, where they had to climb 4 floors (via stairs) to reach the vampire at the top. There were multiple caskets on each level, which had vampire spawn, shadows, and skeletons which were all minions for the most part, to let the players get a feel for how powerful the vampire really was as they cleared each floor. However, the vampire knew they were coming (some of the naga archers fled to warn him), so it challenged the players from the top floor (each floor was hollow in the center). In their rush to meet it at the top, they bypassed all the caskets. When they finally reached the vampire, he turned insubstantial and floated to the floor, and they had 4 floors of minions to fight to get back down as they all started to awaken (the shadows flying up, the vampire spawn crawling on the walls and the skeletons climbing the stairs).
Minions sure do add flavor if used correctly.
|
|
In the same scenario, they did find where the hopping vampire was located inside a padagoa, where they had to climb 4 floors (via stairs) to reach the vampire at the top. There were multiple caskets on each level, which had vampire spawn, shadows, and skeletons which were all minions for the most part, to let the players get a feel for how powerful the vampire really was as they cleared each floor. However, the vampire knew they were coming (some of the naga archers fled to warn him), so it challenged the players from the top floor (each floor was hollow in the center). In their rush to meet it at the top, they bypassed all the caskets. When they finally reached the vampire, he turned insubstantial and floated to the floor, and they had 4 floors of minions to fight to get back down as they all started to awaken (the shadows flying up, the vampire spawn crawling on the walls and the skeletons climbing the stairs).
Using your encounter described as a guideline, I would break it dowen as follows:
1) REVELATION: The PCs enter the Pagoda, take note of the 4 floors and the hollow center. The Vampire at the top would issue its challenge, goading the PCs to move quickly to the top. Along the way, they would spot the numerous Caskets. I personally would have had the Vampire fight here initially, then go insubstantial at bloodied to float to the top. WHile the Vampire floated, the PCs would likely run up stairs. The Vampire gets to the top, then rings a bell or gong or something, thus activating the minions. Its the same encounter, but there is dramatic tension.
2) RECONSIDER: At the point when the minions start appearing, this would be the reconsider phase. The Reconsider phase should impose some kind of choice. Do the PCs deal with the minions or ignore them and go after the Vampire? If the Vampire isn't posing a threat, then its not a real choice. Giving the Vampire a wicked ranged attack to use down the center open area would be a great idea, or perhaps some "Infernal Device" (the vampire rings a gong every round, bringing 1-4 minions back to life, for example). This phase where what the PCs thought was the focus of the encounter (get to the top and kill Vampire) changes to something include something else. The original goal should still be visible. A bait-and-switch is ok once in a while. Your reconsider was the Vampire going *poof* and floating down while the minions streamed up. But what choice did the PCs have besides slog their way down? Here would have been a great "jump into the center of the open space and grab the ropes, then slide down" moment. Risky, but a dramatic scene nonetheless.
3 RESOLUTION: Once the PCs make their decision and "commit" to it, its your job as DM not to "block" it and punish the choice such that the Players don't feel like they made the wrong choice. Rather, the Resolution phase is where you reward their choice and make the ENEMIES change their plans such that it reinforces the choice the PCs made as a good one. The Vampire escaped to the bottom, but perhaps getting "trapped" by all the minions is a blessing in disguise...if the rogue can only disable the "infernal machine" while the rest of the party holds them off, the minions can be made to crumble to dust. That sort of thing.
FYI...I'm not criticizing your encounter...it sounds like it was very cool and fun! I was just trying to impose my methodology on it in order to illustrate how my brain works.
Both examples are wonderful. I really like the sound of that fight.
In the same scenario, they did find where the hopping vampire was located inside a padagoa, where they had to climb 4 floors (via stairs) to reach the vampire at the top. There were multiple caskets on each level, which had vampire spawn, shadows, and skeletons which were all minions for the most part, to let the players get a feel for how powerful the vampire really was as they cleared each floor. However, the vampire knew they were coming (some of the naga archers fled to warn him), so it challenged the players from the top floor (each floor was hollow in the center). In their rush to meet it at the top, they bypassed all the caskets. When they finally reached the vampire, he turned insubstantial and floated to the floor, and they had 4 floors of minions to fight to get back down as they all started to awaken (the shadows flying up, the vampire spawn crawling on the walls and the skeletons climbing the stairs).Using your encounter described as a guideline, I would break it dowen as follows:
1) REVELATION: The PCs enter the Pagoda, take note of the 4 floors and the hollow center. The Vampire at the top would issue its challenge, goading the PCs to move quickly to the top. Along the way, they would spot the numerous Caskets. I personally would have had the Vampire fight here initially, then go insubstantial at bloodied to float to the top. WHile the Vampire floated, the PCs would likely run up stairs. The Vampire gets to the top, then rings a bell or gong or something, thus activating the minions. Its the same encounter, but there is dramatic tension.
2) RECONSIDER: At the point when the minions start appearing, this would be the reconsider phase. The Reconsider phase should impose some kind of choice. Do the PCs deal with the minions or ignore them and go after the Vampire? If the Vampire isn't posing a threat, then its not a real choice. Giving the Vampire a wicked ranged attack to use down the center open area would be a great idea, or perhaps some "Infernal Device" (the...
Thanks for the feedback in regards to the scenario, and I did allow the players another opportunity versus the stairs as there was massive wood timbers supporting the padagoa in the center. The nezumi rogue actually climbed down one amongst the chaos, to confront the vampire directly. The vampire did not ring a bell, but stating something along the lines of rise my children...
Either way, its great to get some new perspectives.
They had a previous battle with the hopping vampire on a flying ship, where it was crawling underneath the ship to the other side, as they battled. Fun stuff. They had multiple enounter with it, so by the time of the last scenario, they were blood thirsty (no pun intended).
I agree with Paul wrt terrain: Interesting terrain makes for more memorable/harder encounters than simply tougher/more creatures. Thats why I recommend pre-drawing the encounter on a battlemap (or the paper I recommended above). In the process of doing so, think about the encounter, the movement of the enemies/PCs, hidden traps, and what I call encounter triggers.
When drawing I like to think of the encounter in 3 distinct phases:
1) Revelation
2) Reconsider
3) Resolution(The three R's of encounters)
1) Revelation: Perception check, knowledge checks, etc that reveal the encounter. Encounter distances are determined, and initial movement and engagement occurs in this phase. If you describe minions rather than reveal them outright these is the phase where the players test their theories as to which are minions, brutes, etc. (these skeletons where rusty bits of armor, a few even have numerous bones missing. Their weapons look dull and rusty as well. THESE skeletons over here, however, wear better looking armor and weapons, are mostly intact, and it seems you could see the eldritch energies holding them together if only you could get the right angle...)This is also where you as the DM introduce the key powers of the enemies. Goblins and kobold hop away using their racial abilities, hobgoblins form ranks, etc. This phase determines the BATTLE LINE. The Battle Line is where the defenders and soldiers meet and typically lock down. This is important. Placement of the battle line determines the range for the artillery/archer types. If the range is such that the artillery can take advantage of cover bonus, but it can be such that the ranged types have to move out of cover in order to reach the battle line with their attacks, thereby exposing them. Design the encounter with these concepts in mind: Where is the likely battle line (given move rates, where are likely melee types to meet?) Where should I place cover for ranged people (pc and enemy), what kind of obstacles do I need to impede movement so PCs don't...
Brilliant article - it ought to be published.
3 RESOLUTION: Once the PCs make their decision and "commit" to it, its your job as DM not to "block" it and punish the choice such that the Players don't feel like they made the wrong choice. Rather, the Resolution phase is where you reward their choice and make the ENEMIES change their plans such that it reinforces the choice the PCs made as a good one. The Vampire escaped to the bottom, but perhaps getting "trapped" by all the minions is a blessing in disguise...if the rogue can only disable the "infernal machine" while the rest of the party holds them off, the minions can be made to crumble to dust. That sort of thing.
Now here I'm not really in agreement with you. I certainly comprehend the idea of facing the players with an interesting choice but if the choice was a tough one its likely that it was so because all options came with some up side and some downside.
I don't understand why those upsides and downsides themselves are not just allowed to play out. What you seem to be arguing for here is that whatever their choice is back them up and make it work well.
If that is your point then I can't agree because by behaving in this manner you've 'stolen' their choice. Their choice does not matter because your going to run with either of the options and make it the 'correct' choice. In effect you've crafted the elaborate illusion of choice but their decisions is always 'correct' and they might as well come to that decision by flipping a coin since its just as good as weighing the pro's and cons of their options.
Personally I think you should give them a choice and then let them live with the consequences of that choice. If one option was to leap for vines and swing across the river - but its downside is you might fall and be eaten by Piranha's then you run it with that being a possibility.
I agree, actions need consequences. I think it is important that if they take the easy road now with the realization that the road will become difficult later, then the road NEEDS to become difficult later.
|
|
The web troll is eating my posts...Ive lost 2 long explanations. Her's my 3rd:
What I mean is simply have the enemies RESPOND to the PC change in tactics as well...which I think is what you are also in favor of. I do NOT mean make whatever choice they make a success! I simply mean make that choice SEEM like they chose wisely. More of a "descriptive" reward than a tangible, kill the monsters take their loot reward.
Choice: Swing across vine to get across river but maybe fall or go out of your way (a few rounds) to a bridge while the guy your chasing is getting away. (assuming the the "reconsider" moment was the guy they are chasing surprised them by swinging on the vine to get across)
Player chooses bridge - reward choice by having the PC notice the Pirhana and how weak the vines look and perhaps have the guy run somewhat in the direction of the bridge anyway. Do not have the bridge collapse as they approach due to "heavy flooding".
Player chooses vine - reward choice by having the guy they are chasing have a shocked look, a look of panic, before the player rolls a check to see if he makes it across. Do not have the guy they are chasing then run towards the bridge on his side of the river, such that the PCs are like...doh! we could have just used the bridge.
The point I was trying to make was that the PCs are supposed to be heroes. The reconsider moment breaks up the combat and introduces a "OH NO!" moment that the players can have their PCs respond to in a heroic way. Your response as DM is to make sure that however they choose to respond, you describe things in a positive, heroic light. Let the dice fall where they may.
You talked about false choices. It certainly is false if both outcomes lead to the same result. But if the outcomes are vastly different but the players are under the impression that the choice is 6 of one, half a dozen the other, it is also a false choice. We DMs provide the info.
We provide info in the REVELATION phase. We are saying "this is reality as you know it." The PCs react to that reality and start changing the reality by their actions
We then say in the RECONSIDER phase "Reality has changed in this way". Again the PCs react and start changing reality by their actions.
In the RESOLUTION phase, we (the DM) should then be CONSISTENT with that reality and not change "reality" again (no more reconsideration). However, as the PCs change the "reality" we reward them in this phase by now having the enemies be the reactive body rather the PCs. In the prior two phases the DM sets the stage and the PCs react. In this phase, the PCs are attempting to change the stage to their liking (usually with piles of dead bodies at their feet). We as the DM need to let go a little and let them. We have created the encounter, determined tactics, created the environment, set up a gotcha moment. The resolution phase is where we as DMs let go a little and let the players do their thing. No more gotchas, no more "But wait! There's more!" The carnage still goes on, and victory isn't certain, but we DMs won't change the stage or the rules.
That's all I mean. The enemies (the DM) is now simply reacting to the players. That IS rewarding as a player. A player lays a zone down, he expect enemies to avoid it. In the reconsider phase, the DM may have all zones vanish as a magical pulse shoots out from the evil doo-hickey. But in the resolution phase, the DM doesn't pull any "tricks" like that. We already did it, the players are annoyed/thrilled (it really is one emotion if done right), to do it again would suck.
Back to the original topic, one idea I am trying out is the intiative tracker cards that are part of D&D encounters and RPGA events. Basically you fill out a card for each creature and reserve one for each player with all the pertinent stats. Then you shuffle them into a deck based on initiative, with an end of round card at the back.
Seems to work well so far, although I am thinking about adding color tabs to differentiate characters from monsters.
I can note marks, conditions, etc. on each card, and note when they finish.
One problem with that is that they can get all mixed up when you shuffle back through them to refer to a monster's defenses and such between their actions.
What I do is the following: I make stand up cards by folding a cue card in half. On the front of each PC card I write that PCs name on the back I write the PCs defenses and passive perception and intuition. I've also made up several cue cards with the word Enemy and NPC on the front of them. When I prepare for an encounter I uses small sticky notes and write the name and defenses of the different monsters I'm going to use on each one. Then I preroll that monster's initiative and write that on the sticky note as well. When an encounter starts I put the sticky note on the back side of one of my enemy cue cards so that I can see the info. I arrange the cue cards in initiative order on the table. The players can see their names on the cards and where the enemies fall in the order. From my side I can see the names of the PCs and Enemies along with all their defenses. That way when a PC makes an attack I can easily refer to the defenses at glance.
The second thing I do is print out a sheet or stat card for each monster. I try to get a couple on a page, so I don't have too much paper in front of me to shuffle through (this can get a little tricky when you run a big fight with many types of monsters). If I'm using multiple monsters of the same type I put little, round, coloured stickers on each mini with a number on it. The stat sheet for the monster has the corresponding numbers on it with the hp for each monster. This allows me to quickly track the hp for multiple monsters without getting them mixed up.
I find that this technique has worked very well for me and saves my mental energy for planning tactics and the like. It also keep my end of the game moving quickly.
Back to the original topic, one idea I am trying out is the intiative tracker cards that are part of D&D encounters and RPGA events. Basically you fill out a card for each creature and reserve one for each player with all the pertinent stats. Then you shuffle them into a deck based on initiative, with an end of round card at the back.
Seems to work well so far, although I am thinking about adding color tabs to differentiate characters from monsters.
I can note marks, conditions, etc. on each card, and note when they finish.
|
|
How much of the 4 hours is actually taken up with the combat encounters?
Curious,
S.Other than BS time, usually all of it or close to it. Say the group is in the middle of a 'dungeon', we still only get 2 encounters done in the time period. I have had times where we get to 3 encounters and once where we only did one (a big three-way battle between the players and 2 other groups in a free-for-all fight), but the average amount is 2.
Time to "have a fight" is still my issue with battle-mat based RPG's (not picking on 4e, this counts equally for 3.x and PF). More precise and definitely more controlled battles, but very time consuming. I enjoy the tactic feel to it, but it really does interrupt my role-playing experience. In 4 hours I would hope for more than just moving plastic figures around on a grid. Then again if it's what your group expects and likes then no issue.
S.
To track initiative, I use a GameMastery Combat Pad setup in a picture frame holder so everyone can see.
To track initiative, I use a GameMastery Combat Pad setup in a picture frame holder so everyone can see.
We've used the Combat Pad for a while, too. It's a very nice product. We typically designate one party member to be the "initiative guy" and it's his job to let people know when it's their turn, who is "on deck" etc.