Quickening the Pace- D&D combat needs to be faster

[Mistborn]

Silva stop thread shitting, this a thread about speeding combat resolution in D&D. You are completely incapable of making useful contributions here. Also no one cares about Runequest it's a shit game that only smarmgarglers like you care about.

As for the thread topic the easiest thing to do in order to speed things up would probably be decreasing the number of dice rolls. Maybe you could do something like SAME only with static defense numbers?

[silva]

There was also this iron age game where your character advancement was based on epithets: if you saved the village from a drought you gained the "Rain-maker" beside your character name and now you could effect weather; if you gained "The Skullcrusher" then now you can make more damage in combat, etc.

If anyone remember its name, enlighten me. I think it had "Dark something" in the title.

[Kaelik]

Well...

Pick one.

Either Prak wants to play D&D and his desired changes/goals don't stop it being D&D and that's fine and we get to talk about them.

Or Prak doesn't really want to play D&D and his desired changes/goals stop it being D&D and that's fine and we get to talk about them.

Or who cares, be a dick, pick both, but it's still fine and we get to talk about it.

So just to be clear, if someone posts in your heartbreaker threads "PL, your heartbreaker needs to be completely destroyed and replaced with 3e/3.5/Tome D&D, because I like that more" your argument isn't going to be "Actually no it doesn't, because this is a different game, and so it can be different than what you want." And you will instead just say, "Yes let us get right about destroying my heartbreaker and replacing it with 3e D&D"?

No, you won't? Because that is obviously a different game for people who want to play something completely different? Then why the fuckshit are you so insistent that D&D needs to be radically morphed into something completely unrelated in this thread, and oppose the very idea of someone suggesting that maybe if you don't want to play D&D you should play a different game?

[Kaelik]

Cruciform swords, leather footwear, plate armour and kingdoms are a bad way to judge if a culture is iron age or not; especially as all of those existed within, and we have the artifacts to prove it, pre-collapse Bronze Age kingdoms such as Mycenaean, Crete, Troy and the Middle East.

Better metrics for whether a setting is "Iron Age" or something else:

[*]Does the culture use iron? Really, that's the major one; and can't be ignored.
[*]Is the iron prevalent and available as commonly as actual iron is on Earth? (i.e. very common, the bulk of Earth's mass is varying states of Iron)
[*]Are there sufficiently distributed blacksmiths in the population such that the society won't collapse into chalcolithic/paleolithic technology when their iron tools needs repair? (Anyone studying Iron Age economies who doesn't understand the linchpin position of the blacksmith in maintaining their local technology at ferric age levels is either blind, or doesn't understand how economy or cultures work)
[*] Is blacksmithing and metallurgy in general seen as "almost magic" by non-smiths? (not commonly known, but originally this was thought in some places; before the industrial revolution)
[*]Are moral codes still pretty much: "might makes right", "kill all enemy combatants; enslave the healthy; leave the rest", "The ruler is the most badass warrior around"
[*]Are the bulk of the most advanced technological devices no more complicated than things that can be assembled by hand (i.e. no need for highly machined parts with low fit-tolerances; which are sort of required for higher performing cannon and steam age equipment).

Oh for fucks sake JE. When people talk about whether a society is iron age they sure as fuck don't mean whether or not the society uses fucking Iron. Our society uses iron. They mean whether it has the traits we commonly associate with the fucking societies that existed on earth during the iron age.

So a post apocalyptic society with guns could be Iron Age, and a fantasy future sphere with instantaneous communication and transportation across the planet free for everyone, but using iron swords would not be iron age.

[Omegonthesane]

Cruciform swords, leather footwear, plate armour and kingdoms are a bad way to judge if a culture is iron age or not; especially as all of those existed within, and we have the artifacts to prove it, pre-collapse Bronze Age kingdoms such as Mycenaean, Crete, Troy and the Middle East.

Better metrics for whether a setting is "Iron Age" or something else:

[*]Does the culture use iron? Really, that's the major one; and can't be ignored.
[*]Is the iron prevalent and available as commonly as actual iron is on Earth? (i.e. very common, the bulk of Earth's mass is varying states of Iron)
[*]Are there sufficiently distributed blacksmiths in the population such that the society won't collapse into chalcolithic/paleolithic technology when their iron tools needs repair? (Anyone studying Iron Age economies who doesn't understand the linchpin position of the blacksmith in maintaining their local technology at ferric age levels is either blind, or doesn't understand how economy or cultures work)
[*] Is blacksmithing and metallurgy in general seen as "almost magic" by non-smiths? (not commonly known, but originally this was thought in some places; before the industrial revolution)
[*]Are moral codes still pretty much: "might makes right", "kill all enemy combatants; enslave the healthy; leave the rest", "The ruler is the most badass warrior around"
[*]Are the bulk of the most advanced technological devices no more complicated than things that can be assembled by hand (i.e. no need for highly machined parts with low fit-tolerances; which are sort of required for higher performing cannon and steam age equipment).

Oh for fucks sake JE. When people talk about whether a society is iron age they sure as fuck don't mean whether or not the society uses fucking Iron. Our society uses iron. They mean whether it has the traits we commonly associate with the fucking societies that existed on earth during the iron age.

You will note that one of the traits we associate with the Iron Age is using iron.

And I mean, items 3 and 5 are well known bits that you expect of the Iron Age, while item 4 is something you could probably extrapolate from low education levels and how important being the ironworker is. There's a reason one of the three top-tier badasses in the Kalevala is a blacksmith.

So a post apocalyptic society with guns could be Iron Age, and a fantasy future sphere with instantaneous communication and transportation across the planet free for everyone, but using iron swords would not be iron age.

I'd just call that first one "post apocalyptic", it fails to tick some of the boxes of Iron Age even if it does have thematic similarities.

[Kaelik]

You will note that one of the traits we associate with the Iron Age is using iron.

And you'll note that the entire point of my post was to say that it fucking isn't a meaningful one. I mean, statistically speaking 10000000000000% of Iron Age societies on Earth were composed of only humans, but that doesn't mean dwarves can't have an iron age society. The relevant considerations are things like 4.

And I mean, items 3 and 5 are well known bits that you expect of the Iron Age, while item 4 is something you could probably extrapolate from low education levels and how important being the ironworker is. There's a reason one of the three top-tier badasses in the Kalevala is a blacksmith.

4 is an actual trait of iron age societies that makes something seem Iron Ageish, but that is just because JE is a stopped clock, you can tell because all 4 of the other ones are completely fucking stupid. 3 and 5 are not well known anythings that you would expect from an iron age society. 3 doesn't even apply to most iron age societies on earth, and 5 is both wrong (custom made swords have the same fucking "fit tolerances" as machine made swords, they are just non standardized) and also is so vague that it does nothing to appreciably separate iron age societies from different ones, like medieval or bronze age societies.

For fucks sake, if I said with a straight face that a defining characteristic of cyberpunk is "having electricity" you would have to be a fucking idiot to think that was a meaningful qualifier, since it doesn't distinguish cyberpunk from any of the things that people might actually mistake for cyberpunk.

I'd just call that first one "post apocalyptic", it fails to tick some of the boxes of Iron Age even if it does have thematic similarities.

You are clearly an idiot, so I will try to be slow about this but for fucks sake pretend to think.

If I say something is "post apocalyptic" the only thing you know about it is that it happens after the apocalypse. Nothing else. That is sort of a genre, but it doesn't mean that post apocalyptic societies can't be Iron Age, Bronze Age, Industrial Age, Medieval, Information Age, or any other age.

Like I get that when I said post apocalyptic you imagined a bunch of stuff that I didn't say, but try to separate that. I think the Terry Brooks Shanara books that I have never really read are post apocalyptic, but are clearly not within the general concept of what people consider a post apocalyptic society.

So it is very possible to have a post apocalyptic society that is Western, Iron Age, Information Age, Medieval, or whatever. Depending on the features of that world.

You could have an iron age post apocalypse with guns. It would have to have several things going on, because guns are usually considered incompatible with the single badass ruling by badassery for a lot of good reasons, but it could happen.

[ishy]

I'm totally not sorry for this, but I have to do this:

I'd just call that first one "post apocalyptic", it fails to tick some of the boxes of Iron Age even if it does have thematic similarities.

You are clearly an idiot,

[silva]

Perhaps Kaelik´s point is that socio-cultural distinctions tend to be more important than material ones ? If so, I tend to agree. Things like weakly organized/decentralized societies (bunch of local villages forming loose alliances for mutual protection), high polytheism and religious freedom, culturally fragmented regions, leadership based on example and simple values (instead of complex politics), etc. seem much more important criteria indeed.

[Prak]

I don't care enough to copy-paste all your bullshit into one reply, so I'm just going to quote one and refer to the others

In regards to D&D taking my virginity-
Yes, D&D 3.5 was my first RPG, but while it's a lame fuck, every other "kill shmucks and take their shit" fantasy game is worse. Runequest has a shit system (fake d%, roll under, magic is either ridiculously tedious to acquire or ridiculously over powered in knowledgeable enough hands and merely annoyingly difficult to acquire more of) and it's default setting is a reconstructionist piece of crap; Ars Magica's system is sufficiently opaque that you could make it a college textbook; WHFRPG has a shit system and is Warhammer; Exalted is White Wolf, has a crappily defined system, and sufficient types of sexual deviancy that people not turned off by the furry and bestiality stuff with Lunars will be squicked the fuck out by the time the books start giving them pedophilic necrophilia, if not before. Those are the major ones, what else should I explain the badness of? You mention Shadowrun, but that's not sword and sorcery fantasy, it's techno-fantasy. It'd be fun for a lark, but I prefer my fantasy to look like Marvel Asgard, not Blade Runner with orcs. Also the feel of D&D is part of why I like it. Sorry, but I don't want to get caught up in cattle ownership disputes, I want to bust into dungeons, kill shit, profit, and be a fantasy fucking rockstar.

Saints Row with plate mail and longswords. That's what I fucking want from my fantasy gaming, so even if Runequest used the "Dx+Mods" system that it really wants to and I made peace with it's "science doesn't exist, all is shitty primitive just so explanations" it still would not be the game I want, because Runequest is about "Authentic Bronze/Iron Age societies but with magic!" not "Kick in the dungeon door, kill the inhabiting monsters, acquire loot and fuck bitches." And even if it can accommodate that, the people who run it don't want to run it that way or they'd just run fucking D&D.

Nice points Judging Eagle.

For more authentic Iron Age settings, see Glorantha (with bronze age elements thrown in), Agon, Hillfolk, Yggdrasil, etc. There was that d20 setting that had a strong iron age vibe too but the name escape me now. *EDIT* Scarred Lands!

I've explained my issues with Glorantha heavily, and Dragon's Pass is not he tabletop Glorantha, and whether MRQ is representative or not, I would probably just take even more issue with any other version, so fuck Glorantha.
I am dubious about Agon's claims, but it doesn't matter, because if I haven't heard of it before now, I would have a better chance of finding a unicorn to play D&D with than real people to play Agon with. Also, looking through the sample pdf, it's a system where your abilities are rated by die size, so fuck Agon.
I just googled Hillfolk, and first, the thing about Agon and Unicorns holds true here too, and second reading the preview on google I saw "epic personal interaction" so I do not have high hopes, given that implies the game is about diplomacy and diplomacy mechanics in games range from "fucking terrible" to "shit, but the game isn't about diplomacy so no one cares." The Kickstarter exhorts "those magical game sessions where the dice and rules fall away, and the entire group spontaneously enters a collective zone of pure story and character" and I have lost interest. The game itself doesn't care about rules, so why should I care about it, let alone the book that basically tells me that the best session is one where I don't need it. If I wanted to resolve things purely through whoever was the best actual diplomat or had the quickest wits, I would go join a theatre or improv group and maybe get laid.
Yggdrasil once again has me looking for unicorns to just play D&D with, but it also uses an exploding d10 dicepool keep two system. If I want a shittily constructed system where I just gather as many d10s as I can and hope as many of them explode as possible, I'll play fucking WoD. I have fond memories, and I could actually find players. And again, I might actually get laid if I did that. ...in fact I might need to go post in some Fetlife groups now.
Scarred Lands is a D&D setting for d20 by White Wolf. I would love to play a necromancer who makes three undead from one corpse and has a run in with the Jack of Knaves that might end in getting shanked, sucking the JoK's dick, or running from a river-boat mounted carnival of sadists and monsters, but White Wolf is no better at writing d20 material than they are at writing material for their own games. CRs and LAs are over the fucking place, and that's just the creature collections. I might review one or two if I don't feel like doing something more constructive some time.

Finally, your response to this thread verges on spam, Silva. You saw the thread title, you came in knowing it was specifically about altering D&D, and you know that most people here, including me, do not want to play Runequest, Bear World, or pretty much any other fucking thing you might advocate. If you started liking and advocating 3.X, I'd search for what shit rules had you excited so I could fix them in my games. And instead of replying in the vein of the thread with any suggestions for making D&D combat quicker, even "I really like this thing from [shitty game] and think it speeds up combat, have you considered adding that?" you said "just play something better." Kaelik's response of this sort was expected, and he can design and reason his way out of a paper bag, and still provide valid and valuable points and thoughts even if his initial response is "clearly you don't want to play D&D." Stop spamming you shitlord, Silva.

[codeGlaze]

Post apocalypse is essentially just a descriptor.
For instance Eberron is pretty close to a fantasy post -apoc renaissance society. Hell, most fantasy worlds hint at an apocalypse of some sort.

Post-apocalyptic just helps describe the setting, but doesn't really insinuate much about the society you expect to be running around in. Or it's a tech level.

[codeGlaze]

[...]As for the thread topic the easiest thing to do in order to speed things up would probably be decreasing the number of dice rolls.?

In my experience I have to admit that rolls probably aren't the biggest speed bump at the tables I'm typically sitting at.

My attempt at time sink ranking...

1. General unpreparedness for your turn
2. Rules referencing
3. Option paralysis
4. Action resolution (rolling, counting, mathing)

[Prak]

In no particular order, the time sinks I see are-

• Iterative Attacks
• Math
• Rules Referencing
  • Spells
  • Subsystems (like grappling)
• Option Paralysis (to a small degree, in my experience OP leads to people just spamming the simple option)

Iterative attacks are probably at the bottom of the list, since if everything else were optimized (people know the rules, don't get paralyzed by choice, can math out their stuff) then Iterative Attacks would go a lot quicker. Hell, with enough preparation, you can roll all your attacks at once (I have three attacks, attack one is the red die, #2 is the green and #3 is the blue), including damage, and if you're not worshiping the sacred cow of hidden ACs*, then the player can just tell you "Hit 6 damage, Miss, Hit 5 damage" and you move on.

*Not voicing any opinion, that's a sacred cow I have a hard time killing myself

Tactical positioning is a bit of a time sink too, but mostly people will jocky a bit to get into position, then stand in place and trade blows until they need to pick a new target.

One idea I toyed with is allowing people to 5 ft. step as an immediate action if they haven't moved or a swift in response to an AoO if they've moved less than their full base speed to emulate the dodging and evading people actually would do in a fight, maybe for a small defense boost (like +2 AC). It wouldn't necessarily speed combat up, but I'm flexible, if D&D becomes more tactical without taking longer to run combat, I'll call that a win too.

[Bihlbo]

My attempt at time sink ranking...

1. General unpreparedness for your turn
2. Rules referencing
3. Option paralysis
4. Action resolution (rolling, counting, mathing)

I agree with these. From my experience the most important one is the first. If everyone spent the time between turns making sure they are ready to start the next turn, the game runs faster no matter the system. I see a lot of delay coming from things like: not knowing its your turn, treating your turn as if you just arrived at the game, not having dice out and ready, not knowing the modifiers you need to know before you make a roll, not knowing where enemies and allies are on the battlefield, having to put down your damn gameboy, etc.

I've played in very few D&D games where the time between my turns is boring enough for me to not be involved. When I have, that has made the game seam as though it's taking too long, or as though the combat were slow. But again, the difference comes down to how you choose to play the game. "Uh, I attack that one," is worse than shouting a battle cry and pointing while you roll, on every level. Part of what makes the game fun is entertaining the other people at the table, and that can be anything from intelligent tactics to creative roleplaying. But if you make combat boring, you make the game bad.

Option paralysis hits me more than the rest. In games where I have a number of pretty good things I could try, I can either tactically plan out something cool or just yolo one of those good options and not feel bad about the choice. This is one of the reasons I like the swingy d20 resolution combined with the low numbers of low-level (or 5e) - nothing you choose to do is so dumb or so good that the RNG can't give you a success or failure. But when I'm playing D&D and the monk and I are back-to-back against 8 opponents, I start my round by attacking a guy, then lock up and think, "It feels like I should move or... I don't know, something. Surely getting out of this situation isn't as boring as an axe swing every round." In games where I have to choose between doing the same good thing I usually do and doing something more fun but tactically foolish, that often means I waste time trying to think of something not-foolish other than my one good move. Additional good options for each turn lead to more confidence in your choices and a more interesting and dynamic combat.

No one has mentioned ego. People who relish in having just a little bit of attention and milk it for all they can. They grab their dice and shake them (seriously, there's no point) and shake them (come on, just drop em) and shake them (no one is feeling tension from this, it's not dramatic you piece of crap drama queen) and shake them (the outcome has nothing to do with how much of your palmsweat gets into the grooves, just throw!) before rolling. Or pausing after every roll to comment on how lucky or poor your rolls have been. Or rolling on an open book just because every roll is cocked or under contention, giving the excuse to roll again, extending your spotlight. Or monologueing every damn turn. I would just mark it up to the two guys in my game who are worst about this, but I've see it more often in games I've played at conventions, game stores, or pick up groups than in my own group.

Every time I think of a rule solution to make combat faster, I come up with ideas that require a large amount of testing, and I don't have a group who will test things with me.

[Prak]

Devices at the table is a two-edged sword- I've had to ask a player to not play his DS between turns and appeal to "you wouldn't do this at [other DM]'s table," but then having a computer can be a huge help and a huge distraction.

I think to some extent, it depends on the table and what's going on. I ran a game Thursday and played in a game Friday, On Thursday, everyone had a laptop or tablet in front of them, but everyone stayed engaged. The fact that I had a newbie and a guy who hadn't played 3.X in a long time may have actually helped there, and the fact that the party wasn't split up probably helped too. On Friday, the GM uses roll20 because one player is in another town, so we all have computers out. In between turns and when the spotlight is elsewhere, everyone is on facebook or playing fucking league. It's annoying as shit even when it's not my game and I'm guilty of it too. The fact that the out-of-town player is currently split from the party and we could just play with roll20 only serving the purpose of giving everyone a map makes it more annoying.

I suppose this is one of those things that can't really be solved at a system level.

[Chamomile]

or playing fucking league.

lolwut? What kind of asshat plays an unpausable multiplayer game while waiting for their turn? Constant gearshifting between one game and another slows things down but at least you can pause the other game and immediately shift focus when your turn comes up. If you're playing LoL, the question is whether you want to dick over your friends at the table by forcing them to wait for a lull or dick over your team in LoL by idling for a minute+ while you take your turn in D&D. It's basically impossible not to be a jerk to someone in that scenario.

[Prak]

Maybe it wasn't league, I don't know. I wasn't really paying attention to what he was doing because he's playing a low-rate Captain Jack Sparrow wannabe Complete Warrior swashbuckler. Maybe he was just watching League promo videos. There was something League related going on, I know that. My friend from high school and I are the only people of the five players plus GM who don't play League, so I kind of just tune out anything related to that.

But we got a day of downtime done because of all the side shit and I had to ask if we could do at least one more day of downtime before calling it a night since I had to get gas and drive out there (normally I catch a ride with my friend, but he couldn't give me a lift).

[momothefiddler]

Both rules referencing and math are things that I've been able to quicken for myself as a player through the extensive use of index cards. For instance, in my recently-started SR5 (I know) game, I decided to be able to summon things before I realized how much that exploded my options. Now I have index cards with the base stats of each kind of spirit I can summon and cards for the corresponding abilities, each with a summary of the mechanics involved, all pre-calculated in terms of Force (with a spot on the spirit card for me to pencil in the Force).

It was way too much work, but damn if it isn't nice to be able to grab the spirit card, pull off the power card paperclipped to it, and see what I can do. It helps me a bit with option paralysis, too.

I have a similar setup for my prepared Alchemy spells.

---

Applying this to D&D, it'd be easiest to apply it to spells, especially for spontaneous casters (prepared casters would need a lot more, well, preparation), but it could also be used to list and pre-add the appropriate modifiers for initiating a grapple or whatever.

Now, I haven't tried this for anyone but myself, and I have heard complaints that ability cards are gimmicky and dumb and immersion-breaking, but from

I want to bust into dungeons, kill shit, profit, and be a fantasy fucking rockstar.

you're probably not gonna have a huge issue with it. And, in my experience, it really does streamline things immensely.

Once you do the prep work, at least.

[Prak]

Ability cards would help a lot, but it requires people to be prepared. Hell, in the past I've actually made a spellbook for my casters so that even when referencing spells I at least didn't have to search, I had all my prepp'd spells copied into a word document arranged by level. The problem is then getting people to do this prep.

[momothefiddler]

The problem is then getting people to do this prep.

That one I don't have an answer for. Maybe your unicorn pals know people who're willing to do that.

[Orion]

For instance Eberron is pretty close to a fantasy post -apoc renaissance society. Hell, most fantasy worlds hint at an apocalypse of some sort.

Wut? How is Eberron post-apoc?

[Prak]

It's post great war, I can see why someone might assume it's post-apoc, but it's really not.

[ishy]

In between turns and when the spotlight is elsewhere, everyone is on facebook or playing fucking league. It's annoying as shit even when it's not my game and I'm guilty of it too.
[ . . . ]
I suppose this is one of those things that can't really be solved at a system level.

The problem is then getting people to do this prep.

Are you sure the people you play with have the same priorities you do? It sounds like they just want to hang out a bit and have a good time. While you have a far greater focus on actually playing the game.
Sounds like you should just talk it out with your group. Ask them to not do facebook / league stuff while playing d&d or agree that you can do that stuff, but accept that it is more of a social gathering and don't expect too much D&D progress.

[Orion]

If you saw a league game on his screen but the dude wasn't clicking like an overcharged metronome, he was probably watching a tourney.

PhoneLobster posted one idea I could get behind: eliminating multi-attacks as currently implemented and reforming AoEs. When you fireball 10 ogres, you want half to go down and half to stay up, so you need at least one roll per target. But rolling random HP for each ogre, random damage for each ogre, and then a saving throw for each ogre is overkill.

[Shady314]

For instance Eberron is pretty close to a fantasy post -apoc renaissance society. Hell, most fantasy worlds hint at an apocalypse of some sort.

Wut? How is Eberron post-apoc?

There have been multiple apocalypses in Eberron's past so... technically.

[Prak]

I think iteratives can be condensed into a single roll too- maybe something like each iterative you would normally get gives you a +2 to your roll, and for every 2 by which you exceed their AC you deal an extra attack worth of damage to a max of the iteratives you'd normally get.

So a 6th level full BAB character gets +6 to their attack, plus another 2 on full-attacks, and if they beat their enemy's AC by 2 or more, they deal (weapon+str)x2. If they beat it by four, they still only deal (weapon+str)x2.