DM timing

[Timdog]

I've only done a bit of DMing, and one big part I find hard it "real world timing" vs. "game timing".

For example, the group I was playing with hit a guild hall the other day. Within 2-3 rounds of hitting the front door, we had all kinds of badguys lining the windows. Ended up In us having to run away because we were so very outnumbered and getting totally shut down by magic.

The fact that all these extra bodies piled in within a few rounds just felt off though. This means they got up from whatever they were doing, got their s@&! equipped etc, and were at the windows in what, 12 seconds?

That seems way to fast for me, but I don't know that I can call the DM on it because we were basically done mopping up the original guys outside so if we had enough time to kill those guys then those other guys had time to get there I suppose.....

[Timdog]

Sorry pulled away and posted without asking a question.. Expeinced DMS how do you balance real life timing with game timing

[kestral287]

Well, it depends on where they were before and what they were doing.

As a counterexample, last session I played the party was raiding a bandit fort, and we got into a fight in a hallway. Then the door directly next to us opened and we found out that was a barracks full of soldiers.

Did it make sense that they were all there and that they came spilling out that fast? Well yeah, that's literally what that room was there for. Some other men came in from other directions a few rounds later, so they were also nearby (logical, given where we were) but either further away or not properly equipped, so they took some time to get ready for battle.

So a guild hall. What kind of guild? If it's a magic guild, then yeah, these guys don't typically need a lot of time to get kitted up so it makes sense they were on you quickly. If it's a warrior's guild full of knights in full plate, it makes less sense unless they had a reason to be armored up beforehand.

[Pan]

Combat is part abstraction and part simulation. I try not to dwell too much on rounds and actual time. I do try to make sense logically if possible. For instance, in your story you kick in the door and start fighting 3 rounds later reinforcements show up. If you consider the reinforcements only acting within that combat window, then yeah it seems a bit too fast. However, if you consider the entire encounter beginning as you approach the guild hall it makes more sense reinforcements arrive when they do.

[bookrat]

From my own experience, a lot of GMs just ignore things like the time it takes to don armor (unless it's detrimental to the PCs), or readiness time of an NPC.

As an experience soldier myself, I'll tell you that a well designed militia unit that is combat ready at all times will have a rotation of soldiers at the ready. A small(ish) group will be the quick reactionary group ready to respond in an instant; these fellows are all geared up and the only delay should be to get from where they are to where they need to be. A secondary group will be posted that only has to grab some gear - they're partially geared up. It takes them a bit longer to get ready; maybe 5-10 minutes, and then they're ready to go.

Lastly is everyone else, who will be in a range of readiness, from the guys who are completey geared up due to training to the guys who are just lounging around and maybe have a weapon with them but no armor (and they may or may not show up to the fight partially geared) to the guys who are sleeping and may or may not hear the battle going on depending on how deep of a sleep they're in.

Depending on the layout of the guild, the guys fresh to battle should be relieving those who are already engaged in order to protect lives and relieve exhaustion (which doesn't realy exist in pathfinder).

A good GM may not necessarily account for such a scenario though, as setting up a well designed militia by a GM first requires knowledge how how a militia should be run. Most people do not have such knowledge, and therefore hand wave it so all the members are gear ready at any moment. In reality, such a unit would be quick to mutiny or abandon post; especially after the first few nights of being required to sleep in full plate armor. :) I kid, though; hand waving it is perfectly fine to account for the fact that this is a game.

And then all of this is thrown out the window once you put in magic. Having magic casters that require no preparation or have already prepared - all they have to do is get up, go to the window. And start casting. They're already combat ready. Of course, the spells they have prepared for the day (if prepared casters) may be useless. This is why I sometimes have mages in battle just firing crossbows - they have no combat useful magics ready (especially if they were in a situation where they weren't expecting combat). A fortification that always expects to be attacked will always have casters with at least one combat focused spell - and they should be spells which make the greatest number of their allies more effective or the greatest number of enemies dead or less effective (I rarely have them prepare things like magic missile; too narrow).

[Bacon666]

You also need to think of the threat level

If the guild master (or some1 else of importance) knew a group of adventures was comming fir them, it makes sense to keep a rather large force ready...

[tsuruki]

Was the enemy guild prepared or suspicious of possible attack?

Is this a random civilian guild or the hideout of an evil cult?

Is the guild in any way related to a vast story full of dangerous individuals?

Or is it the medical centre for old carebears?
.

Too little information to go on here man, in general if the troops i nthe area are in any sort of preparedness then it should take them minimum 3 rounds maximum 10 minutes to get into the fight. Minimum assuming they dont need to don armor and are at most 60ft away from the place where the combat is going on.

[Gluttony]

Published adventures often have notes that outline how fast enemies react to the sound of combat. Usually it's formatted as something like 1d6+2 rounds, with the +2 part being the actual minimum time it would take if they responded immediately, and the 1d6 representing delay from the fact that it (generally) wouldn't be realistic that they respond as fast as possible.

[voideternal]

Timdog wrote:

...all these extra bodies piled in within a few rounds just felt off though...

...That seems way to fast for me, but I don't know that I can call the DM on it...

It sounds like there's a player in your group that doesn't agree with the world that the GM set up. It sounds like a problem of realism.

Basically, your GM describes a situation and the player finds it unrealistic and therefore rejects it. For example, the GM says reinforcements arrive in 1 round, and the player argues that real life reinforcements should not arrive that fast.

I've seen this issue pop up multiple times, and it's not only limited to timing. In one published adventure that I was running, the players were investigating a burned down basement. One of my players kept complaining that the basement would not realistically catch fire given the material used in the basement. Said player kept complaining for a good 30 minutes interrupting game flow.

I've seen a number of players, and everyone cares for realism in different degrees. Here are a few ways to handle the problem as a GM if a player doesn't agree with the GM's sense of realism:
0) Ignore the complaining player -> The player will most likely be upset and fun is lost.

1) Convince the player that the scenario is 'normal' and 'real' immediately, possibly by citing examples. The examples might be real, like, "According to XXXXX, real world militia had a rotation system where alert guards were always available" or something in-game, like, "Roll knowledge(Local). You got a 16? Well you learn that the guards at Thornwall are so vigilant they are known as the Sleepless Sentinels." -> If the player accepts the explanation, the player is sated. However, the GM pauses the game for a few seconds to explain, which interrupts the game flow.

2) Accept the player's complaint, and rewind the game and fix the error in realism. The GM might say, "You know [player], you're right. Never mind guys, the guards don't actually appear, but instead you hear a bunch of agitated shouting and the sound of metal armor being donned hastily." -> The player's sense of realism is preserved. However, game flow is broken. The GM is forcing all the players to rewind the scenario in their minds. Additionally, the GM is indirectly inviting the player to 'correct' the GM for future errors on realism. Hence the game is interrupted, and will be interrupted again in the future.

3) Acknowledge the player's disagreement, but do not address it immediately. Afterward, leave clues to hint the explanation for the unrealistic situation. The GM might initially only say, "Yes [player]. The guards seemed to react faster than normal." Later, the players find a half-deciphered paper document. Rolling Linguistics, the players realize the document describes a coordinated attack on the Guild Hall organized by the local Gang and the Sewer Wererats. The player's then deduce that the Guild Hall was on high security anticipating this attack. -> Though the player is not immediately sated, the player is reassured that the GM agrees with the player's take on realism. Later once the clues are found, the player explains to him/herself of the unrealistic situation and is thus more likely to accept the explanation. In some cases, the player is less likely to interrupt the GM in the future because the GM might look like s/he actually knows what sh/e is doing.

I personally like 3) the most. I try to perform it when there's a realism issue on my table. It usually works for me.

[Timdog]

Thanks, those are great tips