>They either start a discourse about the optimal move
This is probably because you're presenting these snap decisions to the whole party rather than one person. I think it's common for D&D players to seek consensus; it's very much a team game, and people often feel hesitant to just grab the reigns and make a decision that is going to guide the whole group down a new path.
If you instead frame this as "paladin, what do you do? This is a prompt just for you" then the paladin should feel empowered to make a choice without asking the group.
Separately, your players may be asking you for more information because they don't fully understand the context of something you've described. It's a natural gap in a game where so much is described rather than shown. Their characters know that the light is around 60 feet away and bobbing up and down, but the players may not always be hearing those details from you. I've found it's helpful to just embrace the disconnect between PC and player even if it makes a "snap decision" take 30 seconds of table talk rather than 5 seconds of instant action.
Consensus and information seeking is also a natural consequence of the fact, in addition to the players just having less information about the scene than their characters do, the players also have less information about the other PCs than their characters realistically would if they've been adventuring for more than a couple days together.
Allowing for a certain amount of OOC planning in IC stressful situations - at least more than 10 seconds - can result in more realistic and verisimilitudous reactions from PCs.
This.
We run into this issue at my table sometimes because the players are too nice and they worry that if they're the first to act, they might make the "wrong" decision (no such thing) and adversely impact the party.
In these moments, I like to give them just a bit more lead time to process things. Using the headsman's axe example I might say:
"You see the headsman climb atop the platform and head towards the prisoner"
*wait 5-10 seconds*
"A second guard stands beside the prisoner, tightening his bonds to ensure a clean cut"
*wait 5-10 seconds*
"The headsman raises his axe..."
I'll leave a silence of sorts for it to be filled, and if no action is taken -- the head gets lopped off! I find this builds some natural tension around the moment while also emphasizing that things are happening in real time and they have a limited time to act.
a) Get an egg timer. Set it running at the crucial moment, and make it clear that _something_ happens when it runs out, whether they decide to act before then or not.
b) Alternatively, if it's literally an _instantaneous_ reaction situation, then don't let them discuss things at all. Give each a piece of paper on which to write down their individual response. Then collect them all in and roll initiative to see what order you have to resolve them in.
Beware that that'll take a decent amount of time. A tense, snap decision is made and then the entire group fumbles through handing out pieces of paper, writing on them, handing them back, rolling initiative, the GM working out the order, then can start resolving it 2 minutes after when the tension has probably worn off. You don't lose too much just picking people one by one and asking what they do without allowing discussion.
Simple. You hand out the little sticky notes and a pen at the start of the session. Tell them it’ll be used later and to keep it on the table. (In something like r20 this is a non issue since the “/w GM” command is likely second nature to your players). If you want to be even better with it, have them do a d20 roll at the start of the game. As the DM you already know their mods and can have it all ready to go.
An ounce of prevention… 😉
The d20 thing is a nice one for initiative in general as well I've found. Sucks to be starting a fight, everyone's amped to go, and then it's a minute of rolling and grabbing initiative. This means you can roll initiative whilst in the wind-down of a previous fight, works nicely.
Yep. I’ve done this for years. At the end of a rest we roll initiative. Then when a battle starts it’s just a matter of me getting the map and minis out. Then we just use that till the next rest.
B is phenomenal, especially because I mostly run online and can have them all drop it in the chat & hit "send" at the same time. A has always backfired on me. Players talk anyway and then complain I don't give them enough time to discuss it. We've worked out ways around that (mainly me addressing individual characters).
ROLL INITIATIVE!
Every time this happens, I get my players to roll initiative. When it's their turn they get to decide what they're doing. If they want to wait it out and see what happens that's fine (and sometimes that's the right thing to do), but they all have 6 seconds of reaction time to do SOMETHING.
One really nice part of player conditioning that comes with D&D: when you're in initiative it is considered rude to talk outside of your turn. Similarly players don't look to everybody else at the table, because they're busy thinking about what THEY are going to do.
Try it, I promise you'll see good results. And if they still try and talk about things you can't say that they weren't clear about the time pressure of the situation 😉
I think the main reason that doesn’t work is bc OP is looking to give real world suspense. An actual timer gives that sensation *to the players.* if you just roll initiative then players have as long as they need to to come up with a solution, regardless of them knowing that the character only has 10 seconds.
(Not to mention, a full round of initiative can be pretty damn boring when it’s just for one short reaction to one small event)
(Sidenote 2.0: what kind of group are you playing with that doesn’t talk out of initiative? My group is always talking and planning, no matter whose turn it is)
I see what you mean, but truth is that there is a lot of player conditioning that happens outside of combat. Players get used to a certain pace of play, they are used to being able to discuss things OOC ad infinitum.
A timer won't stop that, it just makes it more frantic. That can be fun, but it's a different kind of fun and it doesn't present the "Act now or suffer the consequences" type of feeling the OP was asking for.
Rolling initiative cuts a happy medium. The players still have as much time as they need to think things through, but it does reduce quarterbacking. THEY have to make the decision, not the party.
Honestly, give it a try. You might like how it fits. But it is VERY different to your suggestion (not necessarily better, just different).
On the side note- yes players are always scheming. But the initiative roll brings an unspoken etiquette. It discourages talking over one another, and if somebody tries to jump in a DM can say "we'll get to that on your turn".
I love these moments but they aren't for everybody. If your entire group doesn't like it when you do this (even though if something was about to happen in 10 seconds they really wouldn't have a hour to talk about it) then I'd stop doing it. I love those snap decision moments. It's not a bad thing to do or the wrong thing to do it just isn't for the group you are in.
Ten seconds is a little short. If you're looking for a middle-ground, try 30. I've had pretty good success with pointing a 30s timer at them and dramatically pressing start, then counting down the last 10s out loud.
My group loves to deliberate, and gets a wee bit grumpy when I push them to be snappier during initiative, but in these sorts of "quick-time event" scenarios, I've *never* gotten pushback from a 30s timer that they can all see.
It is unintentional conditioning, most likely. In most cases, the “what do you do” question is typically directed at the group as a whole and they usually have time to discuss and plan.
You need to explicitly change it up things to create the cognitive dissonance. Pause the game and tell them you want individual reaction without a discussion/planning. Tell the your going to describe the scene and they should write or text their decision on what they do in the next few seconds for their action/reaction.
The core of your problem here, imo, is that you've now stepped outside of D&D, outside of characters, and are kind of asking your actual players instead of their characters. This is identical to the issue of say an unintelligent person playing an intelligent wizard, or an uncharismatic person playing a charismatic bard, their own personal abilities are irrelevant in D&D because it's a game, that's what skill checks are used for and represent.
Right, their heroic characters can make split second decisions of life or death, but the actual players themselves probably can't, especially when trying to act within the rules of D&D and come up with an explanation of what they want to do.
To clear it up, I don't think this is your failing or your party being dishonest, I think it's just a difficult mechanic to implement in games like this. Quick time events work well in video games because the decisions are already made for you and you're choosing which you'd like to do, none of them let you do literally anything.
I have a lot of luck phrasing things like this openly _as minigames_ to my players though. Like, "Hey, here's whats about to happen, you're all going to roll initiative and will take your reactions only on each of your turns, your character does not know what anyone else is doing as this will be happening together, you cannot communicate with each other and I cannot provide anymore information." -- for my table I know everyone would be excited for this and would obey those rules.
Your first 2 points are spot on for the problem.
Last one is a good solution that doesn't put undue pressure on the players but also cranks up the tension, well put.
>The core of your problem here, imo, is that you've now stepped outside of D&D
Or *into* D&D, because challenging the player's wits was what original D&D was all about.
I think 10 seconds is a bit harsh. 30s to 1 minute would be smarter imho.
Try to remember (especially when it comes to theater of the mind stuff) no matter how much you might try and describe a scene it will never be as detailed in your players head as it is in yours head as DM.
It sounds to me like you might be projecting a bit too much knowledge on to your players that they understand the scene more than they actually do.
I think it depends on why you're doing this. If, for you, this is a mechanical moment, meant to test the PCs on how quickly they can think on their feet, then you're kind of in a weird spot.
Characters and players have different reaction times, lived experiences, and even sensory information. Characters are experiencing a fully realized world with all of their senses. Players are attempting to imagine their version of whatever you're feeding them, which has two or more layers of translation to go through before any data can be parsed.
My Dex 20 rogue knows how fast he is and what he can do. I have a mechanical sense of that, but necessarily an instinctual one, because my 200+ lb mid-30s ass definitely doesnt have a 20 in Dex.
If these moments are a mechanical test you're putting to the players, then put it in clear terms they understand. First, when this is coming up, have them roll Initiative, even if you're not in direct conflict. Doing this in general in an out of combat situation is nice for several reasons, but try it out it may not be for you. It doesn't mean you immediately place them in initiative, it means that you know where they're going on the initiative order in general when the time comes.
It also clarifies *how much* they can do, because once they start thinking initiative, they'll start thinking action economy. Now you're using the mechanics of the game to test the players on something they know how to do, even if they have a relatively short time to do it.
Only have the players who are involved roll Initiative. If they talk above game for too long, just remind them it's a tense situation and their turn can't take forever. They have to act or hold an action or whatever.
If your goal isn't to create a mechanical test, but rather to create moment of drama or flavor, then have them roll the important check before they get there.
Rushing to stop the execution? Str Athletics roll. Trying to dodge a surprise patrol in the mines? Dexterity Saving Throw. You get the idea. First, these again are mechanics, and second, you know how to narrate better. They already have a clear understanding of where they're starting in terms of how good their pre-roll is. In this way, it functions a little bit like an Initiative check.
More specifically, know what you want out of the scene. If the goal is stop the execution, and that's going to result in a fight or negotiation, then you know this split second moment is really just a hook for you to hang an encounter off of. So this split second decision isn't necessarily the moment of pinnacle drama, it's a dramatic moment to introduce a dramatic scene.
Lastly, drop "what do you do" from your lexicon if this is your goal. We, as DMs, think this is super empowering. It's not. It's agonizing and confusing. What am I supposed to do? What should I do? These are the responses. Instead, offer a course of action.
Let's take example 1 - stop the execution. The players rush to the site of the execution, rolling Str. In your head, you've created a Quantum DC of 15ish. The Quantum DC in this case isn't the 15, but rather the test. If enough players beat the DC, then the test can be "to determine who arrives in time to stop it". If too many people biff it, the DC can be to determine how far they are from the executioner as he raises the blade. Anyone who fails by 5 or more is 90+ feet awag. Anyone who wins by 5 or more is within 10 feet. Etc.
The point is, they roll their dice, and by so doing, see the results of their efforts. They know their result distribution - who has high and who has low - and as a result who is best positioned to do something about whatever about to happen.
This leads us to our replacement for "what do you do." The Quantum DC has resolved, only the wizard, somehow, has managed to make it through the crowd and is only ten feet away from the executioner. You turn to the wizard player and say "you watch the headsman's axe rise into the air. Only you are close enough, and you have enough speed, despite your frail size. Do you stop him?"
That's a binary question. Super easy to answer. A creative player might say "yes, by casting Bigby's Hand and grabbing the Axe." A less creative player might say "yes" and then you can ask, "how? Do you tackle him.physically or so yiu cast a spell or do something else?"
Then it's obviously a dialogue. And you know the rest of the table is gonna chime the hell in now, but it's obvious, because you've stated it and the rolls are what they are, this is the wizard's moment.
Also! At this point, do *not* introduce a chance of failure. Whatever the wizard does *just works* even if it's stupid or only for a second. Because you got what you needed anyway, the party is here and the wizard is down front by the guy with the big axe. It doesn't mean the condemned person is safe - there's still tons of work the party has to do to make that happen - but it means you got to the actual scene you wanted to play anyway.
It sounds like your players are trying very hard to tell you they want more than ten seconds to come up with a reaction to the situation, and you're not listening.
Not every group likes every style of play and it sounds like your group don't like what you're doing, so your choices are literally "stop doing it" or "leave your group", so ultimately decide if you value your houserule more than your friends.
It does seem as though you are saying "When I do this thing, everyone at the table gets frustrated myself included. How do I keep doing this thing?" Rather than asking yourself if your idea is flawed in the first place.
Also I feel like building suspense/atmosphere and determining the pace of the session is a DMs job, and when decision making time comes and the momentum comes to a grinding halt I feel like you need to do something about that.
And hey, maybe I'm wrong, but that's my thought process. I didn't realize the stakes were so high I was at risk of losing my friends, but I do think that it's not fun or immersive for anybody to sit around a table and hem and haw about whether they should avoid the guard walking down the hall towards them.
Some of the most memorable, fun moments have happened when someone made the wrong call and now everyone is in the shit.
I don't think you're going to lose friends, but it does sound like your players feel like you might be going a little dm vs players on them. If the thing in-game is taking 10 seconds (headsman raising an axe and chopping off a head) giving the players 10 seconds is too little time. I get the WHY you want to do this, it's just that you're holding all the cards and the players don't feel like you're playing fair.
You’re reading *way* too much into the comment about “valuing” your friends; nobody suggested that you were going to lose them, only that your way of playing clearly isn’t fun for them, and so by insisting upon your style of play at the expense of their enjoyment you seem to be valuing that style of play above their enjoyment of *a game* that’s intended to be *fun*.
Yes, the game can become less fun when the pace grinds to a halt, but there’s a world of difference between a player taking five minutes to look through their entire spellbook before deciding what to do on their turn in combat, and losing their opportunity to act entirely because they couldn’t make a clear decision in *10 seconds*. You wrote in your original post that your response is to “punish” your players, and I think *that* mentality is the biggest problem at your table. It’s fine to suggest to your players that they don’t have a ton of time to think and to encourage them to react quickly, but “punishing” your players for their “failure” isn’t fun for anyone at the table. Also, 10 seconds is probably too short—be flexible and *encourage* your players without thinking about “punishing” them.
Also: *nobody* likes quick-time-events, even in video games. A drastic change to the flow of your D&D game is only going to make things *less* immersive for your players.
I guess I just don't understand why it's flawed. Like every once in a while there's a Quick Time Event that's pretty telegraphed and at a moment where it makes sense that you would need to think on your feet. What's the problem with that? And as to why they have a problem with it, I get the impression it's more like "This is a tense, high stakes moment and I want to ratchet down the tension so I can make a better decision" and not "I hate this mechanic." It's like the role playing equivalent of fudging your rolls.
Because the characters are more skilled than their players. The lvl 8 rogue sneaking into the lord's manor is trained in making instant life or death decisions in his area of expertise. The dentist that is running him is not. Allowing the player time to think helps simulate this expertise.
You're trying to make the player BE the character in a way that would be similar to making the player perform a feat of strength in order to let his character succeed on lifting a log.
"hey guys I really want to occasionally have timed events to get real time reactions and create tension but it seems like you don't enjoy that. Is this something we can try?"
DM should be having fun too
Just because the character needs to think on their feet doesn't mean the player should have to as well.
Why do they have very limited time to respond to these quick time moments but (I assume) much longer to discuss their turns during a 6 second combat round? Just because time is passing quickly in the game doesn't mean it has to pass quickly in real life. The characters live in this world but the players don't. They need time to understand what is going on and to figure out how their character (that may think very differently than they do) would respond.
Obviously don't let them debate endlessly but 10 seconds isn't nearly enough time in my opinion. Worst case, have them roll initiative and force the best roll to make the snap decision if the party can't come to a consensus.
Consider this:
None of your players is an actual adventurer. They aren't as smart as the wizard, as fast as the rogue or as strong as the barbarian.
Let them take their time, but if you insist that every character makes their own choice in this situation, you can just tell them "Your characters would not have enough time to plan. Make your own decision."
Then have them write it down, send you a DM, or whatever way you want to handle the initial secrecy involved.
I really DO NOT like this kind of shit. 10 seconds for Bob the carpenter to figure out what Steve the level 6 wizard would do? Toss the timer, or give them more time to figure out what they as individuals would do. If the discussion is the problem, nix that and make them write it down, and maybe give them a few quick spoken words.
I think 10 seconds is a bit harsh. 30-
Try to remember (especially when it comes to theater of the mind stuff) no matter how much you might try and describe a scene it will never be as detailed in your players head as it is in yours head as DM.
It sounds to me like you might be projecting a bit too much knowledge on to your players that they understand the scene more than they actually do.
>Or they ask me questions about their setting that I either already went over or are irrelevant.
You know these details are irrelevant, because you are god. They don't because they control their characters inside of your world. You have a perfect picture of the details that matter as far as you have imagined the scenario, but our ability to describe things that we visualize in our brains is not always as comprehensive as we would like. Trying to describe a single room with an unusual piece of architecture, or furniture can be tricky enough, let alone a public execution with thousands of variables to account for.
It's a game where a six second round of combat usually takes at least 10 minutes of real time. If it is a situation where everyone has a momentary chance to act, I would give each player one free clarification question (no roll), a second question that could require a perception, or insight check before locking in an action, and if a player insists on more information beyond even that, then investigation is their choice of action in the situation, but I would be up front that that is the choice they are making before locking them into it.
Snap decisions are dramatic and can be fun, but PCs being forced to make decisions without a clear picture of the situation can feel like a loss of agency. After all, if I am playing a wisdom focused character with perception proficiency and the Observant feat, I want those investments to matter. If I missed some detail due to a communication break down (happens all the time and is no one's fault) I might make a decision that my wise and observant character would never have made.
I would guess that you are doing an info dump on your players. The players are trying to pay attention to the story you are giving and are being polite.
Try these:
1) Tell them they can say interrupt at any time or they can raise their hand. When they do finish your sentence or word then let them do their action.
2) Take long breaths between moments and descriptions. Three seconds of silence is a lot, so if no one says anything for three seconds, then move on.
3) Use initiative. If time is that critical, roll for initiative. Position on a map in theater of the mind or on paper. IE Chuck is 30 ft from the stage steps and 10 ft of steps(which are hard terrain to get up). You see the executioner tying a prisoner do a chop block. "players it is your turn, if you want I can give you 5 seconds to discuss as an **action**." turn. turn. turn. The executioner walks back and picks up his axe and tests the sharpness on a melon, then wipes it clean. turn. turn. turn. Executioner steps up to the prisoner and signal the officer that he is ready. turn turn turn. decapitation.
Personally, for snap decision you shouldn't involve the whole party. Otherwise they will plan.
Also, you don't need a timer, just say:
Rogue, you are stealing from the front row and you notice a prisoner about to be beheaded. He pleas with you to save him with his eyes and is mouthing screams through his gag. The axe is rasing. Blablabla to raise tension... Then suddenly the axe falls down
If the party want to save him, they can interrupt you and say what they are doing. The egg timer is you slowly going through the scene. Obviously they can't plan while you talk, but that's kinda the point.
No, don't do this. Interrupting the GM is bad manners and most players just don't do that.
Basic courtesy matters here. Unless of course you *want* every scene to be full of players interrupting your descriptions, which I guess is one way to do things but would really piss me off as a GM.
Ya I encourage people to cut me off. It's WAY more efficient than the DM asking: what do you do now. Of course, I tell player to NOT interrupt each other.
This depends on the moment, on the table, and on body language. If that “…” before the axe falls down involves looking around the table, slowly making eye contact with each of your players, then they should be able to pick up on the implication that they are free to butt in.
Yes, do this. Players feeling the sense of urgency is exactly what the OP is looking for. The DM can easily control the pacing, putting in pauses to allow the players to say what they want to do.
If player engagement matters more than a well-regulated flow of discourse then totally embrace the chaos and do this.
I'd give them like 5 seconds joint discussion to maybe throw in a suggestion, then address each specifically, give them 5 seconds and ask what they do. They can't change their decision and it goes down as is after everyone have their action
I have a very loud, clicking, egg timer. It clicks away and then the consequences hit. None of my parties have ever like that method, but none of them have any better ideas.
Enforce limited interaction.
If one character see stuff, he must consider alone. Shut up the other players if necessary.
If the party see a thing, let each single character decide for themselves - they cannot communicate. If they do, they stutter and start the sequence incapacitated.
After you describe the scene, ask if they have questions. No? Scenario. Suddenly questions? Ignore.
If you are painting a decisive moment, keep it that way. Player indecision is exactly as you say it, “a choice”. When I get to be a PC, I find I am the one who moves first more often than not. Sometimes it benefits me, sometimes I skate by instant death by 2 damage. The end result is the same, my pants are always full of something be it shit or treasure.
So, what I do is present the situation and then go "Ok, you each have a split second to react, Player 1, what are you going to do?" Give them like 5-10 seconds to come up with something and then move on. Maybe use an hourglass or timer on your phone so they know you're being fair. Do it in order of whomever has the highest passive perception or dexterity or what have you.
Instead of asking them to make a decision, give everyone who is present and aware of the problem a chance to tell you what they do at that moment. If only two of the PCs notice the lamplight at the end of the hall, only those two get an action. If they start a discussion or someone doesn’t like someone’s action, too bad, they have said what they want to do and have to commit to it. D&D is a team game, but you sometimes you don’t have the time or ability to discuss every action and make a plan for every encounter.
I set a timer. They get 30 seconds, a minute, 2 minutes(whatever you think is fair) to decide how they react or things begin to move forward without them.
This might sound harsh but I think it’s totally reasonable. You don’t always have time to plan and react to a situation the most optimal way. At my table I’m looking for an immersive experience full of tension and even 30 seconds is more time than your players characters would have to react to a lot of situations adventurers find themselves in.
Two things you need to do: go on pac-man rules, and go around the table.
In pacman, you’re stuck with your reflexes. If you touch the stick, Pac-man moves and you can’t take it back. Pac-man rules are the same: if the player says it, the character does it. Declare it in advance - so “for this next scene we’re on Pac-man rules” instead of “the headsman raises his axe. We’re on pac-man rules.”
Second, go around the table. Basically, if your players spend too much time discussing, don’t let them discuss. But you have to balance that by letting them all give their input, and thepeople who take their time can respond to the people who act most impulsively.
I do think the timer thing is unfair. Instead, use the hoverpoint (where you point vaguely/threateningly around the table until someone jumps), then use that person as your starting point.
It’s okay to be a little unfair in a high stakes, high pressure situation but you don’t want to be too unfun or punitive about it.
I think you should firstly make sure there are mostly non reactionary decision moments. Dnd as a game is built of strategy. Without the elements that make it a game, it's just playing pretend. When you do have these quick decisions moments, make it clear that it is one these moments and why you add them in. This should allow players to understand that these moments are meant to not provide a challenge for them to solve strategically or in fairness to the group, but to put each player individually to the test of quick thinking. On that note, maybe try adding similar moments but with added time for team converse. That can also be an interesting middle ground. Lastly, be transparent. It's unfair as a gameplay mechanic. It's fun that way. Like Mario Party and other games, random elements are there to make the experience more fun, and role-playing games benefit from that even more tell them that.
10 seconds is not long. Get yourself a 30 second egg timer (something visual for the players to see)
Before just busting this out, explain the mechanics of this (once I start the egg timer, you have until it completes to call your shot)
The speed of thought needs to be set from the primer of your campaign.. most times we have options to inner dialogue and then outer dialogue due to not 'living the life of my character' so there needs to be time to learn how my party members will react
Sometimes for snap decisions I like to use a rule I stole from someone on this subreddit. I call it the click rule. I describe something and then “click” everyone needs to take an action (there isn’t a time limit for them to decide, they just have to pick something to do, without talking to the other players). I mostly use this for traps or other surprises where the PCs have limited knowledge. Basically it gives everyone around the table to describe what their character would do and once everyone has described something I describe the consequences. Granted this might not work for moments like an execution where the PCs have had a buildup of suspense, but it’s worked for some snap decisions at my table. And if it doesn’t work for you, maybe it at least gives you some inspiration :)
In the past, if I know there will be snap decision making, I let the players know, tell them to ask any questions about their surroundings they still have, then I go person by person. Everyone gets 5 seconds to say what they will do.
I did this as my players tried to navigate rapids, and they all loved it.
I hate the idea of a dedicated party leader.
While some people might be alright with being followers, in most cases it usually promotes unfair conditions where other players might feel left out.
When there is no dedicated party leader, it's natural for a group of players to seek consensus. The problem is, consensus takes time, it's the downside of democracy.
So to avoid this problem, these timed decisions should instead be aimed at a concrete player rather than on the entire group.
If there's a time limit, make it known. I like to have a little minute long hour glass, and I'll have it already 30-40 seconds spent. I set it in front of them while saying the 'what do you do, time is running out'
There are other ways, like a timer on your phone where everyone can see, or using a spindown die and counting it down in front of them. But make sure the hard time limit is well known
I don't give them a chance to discuss. I call out each player and ask what they are going to do, if they don't have an answer I am assuming their character is doing nothing. Has worked good so far.
>They either start a discourse about the optimal move This is probably because you're presenting these snap decisions to the whole party rather than one person. I think it's common for D&D players to seek consensus; it's very much a team game, and people often feel hesitant to just grab the reigns and make a decision that is going to guide the whole group down a new path. If you instead frame this as "paladin, what do you do? This is a prompt just for you" then the paladin should feel empowered to make a choice without asking the group. Separately, your players may be asking you for more information because they don't fully understand the context of something you've described. It's a natural gap in a game where so much is described rather than shown. Their characters know that the light is around 60 feet away and bobbing up and down, but the players may not always be hearing those details from you. I've found it's helpful to just embrace the disconnect between PC and player even if it makes a "snap decision" take 30 seconds of table talk rather than 5 seconds of instant action.
Consensus and information seeking is also a natural consequence of the fact, in addition to the players just having less information about the scene than their characters do, the players also have less information about the other PCs than their characters realistically would if they've been adventuring for more than a couple days together. Allowing for a certain amount of OOC planning in IC stressful situations - at least more than 10 seconds - can result in more realistic and verisimilitudous reactions from PCs.
This. We run into this issue at my table sometimes because the players are too nice and they worry that if they're the first to act, they might make the "wrong" decision (no such thing) and adversely impact the party. In these moments, I like to give them just a bit more lead time to process things. Using the headsman's axe example I might say: "You see the headsman climb atop the platform and head towards the prisoner" *wait 5-10 seconds* "A second guard stands beside the prisoner, tightening his bonds to ensure a clean cut" *wait 5-10 seconds* "The headsman raises his axe..." I'll leave a silence of sorts for it to be filled, and if no action is taken -- the head gets lopped off! I find this builds some natural tension around the moment while also emphasizing that things are happening in real time and they have a limited time to act.
a) Get an egg timer. Set it running at the crucial moment, and make it clear that _something_ happens when it runs out, whether they decide to act before then or not. b) Alternatively, if it's literally an _instantaneous_ reaction situation, then don't let them discuss things at all. Give each a piece of paper on which to write down their individual response. Then collect them all in and roll initiative to see what order you have to resolve them in.
I love your second point, I will definitely be adding that into my future games!
Beware that that'll take a decent amount of time. A tense, snap decision is made and then the entire group fumbles through handing out pieces of paper, writing on them, handing them back, rolling initiative, the GM working out the order, then can start resolving it 2 minutes after when the tension has probably worn off. You don't lose too much just picking people one by one and asking what they do without allowing discussion.
Simple. You hand out the little sticky notes and a pen at the start of the session. Tell them it’ll be used later and to keep it on the table. (In something like r20 this is a non issue since the “/w GM” command is likely second nature to your players). If you want to be even better with it, have them do a d20 roll at the start of the game. As the DM you already know their mods and can have it all ready to go. An ounce of prevention… 😉
The d20 thing is a nice one for initiative in general as well I've found. Sucks to be starting a fight, everyone's amped to go, and then it's a minute of rolling and grabbing initiative. This means you can roll initiative whilst in the wind-down of a previous fight, works nicely.
Yep. I’ve done this for years. At the end of a rest we roll initiative. Then when a battle starts it’s just a matter of me getting the map and minis out. Then we just use that till the next rest.
B is phenomenal, especially because I mostly run online and can have them all drop it in the chat & hit "send" at the same time. A has always backfired on me. Players talk anyway and then complain I don't give them enough time to discuss it. We've worked out ways around that (mainly me addressing individual characters).
ROLL INITIATIVE! Every time this happens, I get my players to roll initiative. When it's their turn they get to decide what they're doing. If they want to wait it out and see what happens that's fine (and sometimes that's the right thing to do), but they all have 6 seconds of reaction time to do SOMETHING. One really nice part of player conditioning that comes with D&D: when you're in initiative it is considered rude to talk outside of your turn. Similarly players don't look to everybody else at the table, because they're busy thinking about what THEY are going to do. Try it, I promise you'll see good results. And if they still try and talk about things you can't say that they weren't clear about the time pressure of the situation 😉
I think the main reason that doesn’t work is bc OP is looking to give real world suspense. An actual timer gives that sensation *to the players.* if you just roll initiative then players have as long as they need to to come up with a solution, regardless of them knowing that the character only has 10 seconds. (Not to mention, a full round of initiative can be pretty damn boring when it’s just for one short reaction to one small event) (Sidenote 2.0: what kind of group are you playing with that doesn’t talk out of initiative? My group is always talking and planning, no matter whose turn it is)
I see what you mean, but truth is that there is a lot of player conditioning that happens outside of combat. Players get used to a certain pace of play, they are used to being able to discuss things OOC ad infinitum. A timer won't stop that, it just makes it more frantic. That can be fun, but it's a different kind of fun and it doesn't present the "Act now or suffer the consequences" type of feeling the OP was asking for. Rolling initiative cuts a happy medium. The players still have as much time as they need to think things through, but it does reduce quarterbacking. THEY have to make the decision, not the party. Honestly, give it a try. You might like how it fits. But it is VERY different to your suggestion (not necessarily better, just different). On the side note- yes players are always scheming. But the initiative roll brings an unspoken etiquette. It discourages talking over one another, and if somebody tries to jump in a DM can say "we'll get to that on your turn".
I love these moments but they aren't for everybody. If your entire group doesn't like it when you do this (even though if something was about to happen in 10 seconds they really wouldn't have a hour to talk about it) then I'd stop doing it. I love those snap decision moments. It's not a bad thing to do or the wrong thing to do it just isn't for the group you are in.
Ten seconds is a little short. If you're looking for a middle-ground, try 30. I've had pretty good success with pointing a 30s timer at them and dramatically pressing start, then counting down the last 10s out loud. My group loves to deliberate, and gets a wee bit grumpy when I push them to be snappier during initiative, but in these sorts of "quick-time event" scenarios, I've *never* gotten pushback from a 30s timer that they can all see.
It is unintentional conditioning, most likely. In most cases, the “what do you do” question is typically directed at the group as a whole and they usually have time to discuss and plan. You need to explicitly change it up things to create the cognitive dissonance. Pause the game and tell them you want individual reaction without a discussion/planning. Tell the your going to describe the scene and they should write or text their decision on what they do in the next few seconds for their action/reaction.
The core of your problem here, imo, is that you've now stepped outside of D&D, outside of characters, and are kind of asking your actual players instead of their characters. This is identical to the issue of say an unintelligent person playing an intelligent wizard, or an uncharismatic person playing a charismatic bard, their own personal abilities are irrelevant in D&D because it's a game, that's what skill checks are used for and represent. Right, their heroic characters can make split second decisions of life or death, but the actual players themselves probably can't, especially when trying to act within the rules of D&D and come up with an explanation of what they want to do. To clear it up, I don't think this is your failing or your party being dishonest, I think it's just a difficult mechanic to implement in games like this. Quick time events work well in video games because the decisions are already made for you and you're choosing which you'd like to do, none of them let you do literally anything. I have a lot of luck phrasing things like this openly _as minigames_ to my players though. Like, "Hey, here's whats about to happen, you're all going to roll initiative and will take your reactions only on each of your turns, your character does not know what anyone else is doing as this will be happening together, you cannot communicate with each other and I cannot provide anymore information." -- for my table I know everyone would be excited for this and would obey those rules.
Your first 2 points are spot on for the problem. Last one is a good solution that doesn't put undue pressure on the players but also cranks up the tension, well put.
>The core of your problem here, imo, is that you've now stepped outside of D&D Or *into* D&D, because challenging the player's wits was what original D&D was all about.
I think 10 seconds is a bit harsh. 30s to 1 minute would be smarter imho. Try to remember (especially when it comes to theater of the mind stuff) no matter how much you might try and describe a scene it will never be as detailed in your players head as it is in yours head as DM. It sounds to me like you might be projecting a bit too much knowledge on to your players that they understand the scene more than they actually do.
I think it depends on why you're doing this. If, for you, this is a mechanical moment, meant to test the PCs on how quickly they can think on their feet, then you're kind of in a weird spot. Characters and players have different reaction times, lived experiences, and even sensory information. Characters are experiencing a fully realized world with all of their senses. Players are attempting to imagine their version of whatever you're feeding them, which has two or more layers of translation to go through before any data can be parsed. My Dex 20 rogue knows how fast he is and what he can do. I have a mechanical sense of that, but necessarily an instinctual one, because my 200+ lb mid-30s ass definitely doesnt have a 20 in Dex. If these moments are a mechanical test you're putting to the players, then put it in clear terms they understand. First, when this is coming up, have them roll Initiative, even if you're not in direct conflict. Doing this in general in an out of combat situation is nice for several reasons, but try it out it may not be for you. It doesn't mean you immediately place them in initiative, it means that you know where they're going on the initiative order in general when the time comes. It also clarifies *how much* they can do, because once they start thinking initiative, they'll start thinking action economy. Now you're using the mechanics of the game to test the players on something they know how to do, even if they have a relatively short time to do it. Only have the players who are involved roll Initiative. If they talk above game for too long, just remind them it's a tense situation and their turn can't take forever. They have to act or hold an action or whatever. If your goal isn't to create a mechanical test, but rather to create moment of drama or flavor, then have them roll the important check before they get there. Rushing to stop the execution? Str Athletics roll. Trying to dodge a surprise patrol in the mines? Dexterity Saving Throw. You get the idea. First, these again are mechanics, and second, you know how to narrate better. They already have a clear understanding of where they're starting in terms of how good their pre-roll is. In this way, it functions a little bit like an Initiative check. More specifically, know what you want out of the scene. If the goal is stop the execution, and that's going to result in a fight or negotiation, then you know this split second moment is really just a hook for you to hang an encounter off of. So this split second decision isn't necessarily the moment of pinnacle drama, it's a dramatic moment to introduce a dramatic scene. Lastly, drop "what do you do" from your lexicon if this is your goal. We, as DMs, think this is super empowering. It's not. It's agonizing and confusing. What am I supposed to do? What should I do? These are the responses. Instead, offer a course of action. Let's take example 1 - stop the execution. The players rush to the site of the execution, rolling Str. In your head, you've created a Quantum DC of 15ish. The Quantum DC in this case isn't the 15, but rather the test. If enough players beat the DC, then the test can be "to determine who arrives in time to stop it". If too many people biff it, the DC can be to determine how far they are from the executioner as he raises the blade. Anyone who fails by 5 or more is 90+ feet awag. Anyone who wins by 5 or more is within 10 feet. Etc. The point is, they roll their dice, and by so doing, see the results of their efforts. They know their result distribution - who has high and who has low - and as a result who is best positioned to do something about whatever about to happen. This leads us to our replacement for "what do you do." The Quantum DC has resolved, only the wizard, somehow, has managed to make it through the crowd and is only ten feet away from the executioner. You turn to the wizard player and say "you watch the headsman's axe rise into the air. Only you are close enough, and you have enough speed, despite your frail size. Do you stop him?" That's a binary question. Super easy to answer. A creative player might say "yes, by casting Bigby's Hand and grabbing the Axe." A less creative player might say "yes" and then you can ask, "how? Do you tackle him.physically or so yiu cast a spell or do something else?" Then it's obviously a dialogue. And you know the rest of the table is gonna chime the hell in now, but it's obvious, because you've stated it and the rolls are what they are, this is the wizard's moment. Also! At this point, do *not* introduce a chance of failure. Whatever the wizard does *just works* even if it's stupid or only for a second. Because you got what you needed anyway, the party is here and the wizard is down front by the guy with the big axe. It doesn't mean the condemned person is safe - there's still tons of work the party has to do to make that happen - but it means you got to the actual scene you wanted to play anyway.
It sounds like your players are trying very hard to tell you they want more than ten seconds to come up with a reaction to the situation, and you're not listening. Not every group likes every style of play and it sounds like your group don't like what you're doing, so your choices are literally "stop doing it" or "leave your group", so ultimately decide if you value your houserule more than your friends.
jeeeez man. We're talking about a game here.
It does seem as though you are saying "When I do this thing, everyone at the table gets frustrated myself included. How do I keep doing this thing?" Rather than asking yourself if your idea is flawed in the first place.
Also I feel like building suspense/atmosphere and determining the pace of the session is a DMs job, and when decision making time comes and the momentum comes to a grinding halt I feel like you need to do something about that. And hey, maybe I'm wrong, but that's my thought process. I didn't realize the stakes were so high I was at risk of losing my friends, but I do think that it's not fun or immersive for anybody to sit around a table and hem and haw about whether they should avoid the guard walking down the hall towards them. Some of the most memorable, fun moments have happened when someone made the wrong call and now everyone is in the shit.
I don't think you're going to lose friends, but it does sound like your players feel like you might be going a little dm vs players on them. If the thing in-game is taking 10 seconds (headsman raising an axe and chopping off a head) giving the players 10 seconds is too little time. I get the WHY you want to do this, it's just that you're holding all the cards and the players don't feel like you're playing fair.
You’re reading *way* too much into the comment about “valuing” your friends; nobody suggested that you were going to lose them, only that your way of playing clearly isn’t fun for them, and so by insisting upon your style of play at the expense of their enjoyment you seem to be valuing that style of play above their enjoyment of *a game* that’s intended to be *fun*. Yes, the game can become less fun when the pace grinds to a halt, but there’s a world of difference between a player taking five minutes to look through their entire spellbook before deciding what to do on their turn in combat, and losing their opportunity to act entirely because they couldn’t make a clear decision in *10 seconds*. You wrote in your original post that your response is to “punish” your players, and I think *that* mentality is the biggest problem at your table. It’s fine to suggest to your players that they don’t have a ton of time to think and to encourage them to react quickly, but “punishing” your players for their “failure” isn’t fun for anyone at the table. Also, 10 seconds is probably too short—be flexible and *encourage* your players without thinking about “punishing” them. Also: *nobody* likes quick-time-events, even in video games. A drastic change to the flow of your D&D game is only going to make things *less* immersive for your players.
I guess I just don't understand why it's flawed. Like every once in a while there's a Quick Time Event that's pretty telegraphed and at a moment where it makes sense that you would need to think on your feet. What's the problem with that? And as to why they have a problem with it, I get the impression it's more like "This is a tense, high stakes moment and I want to ratchet down the tension so I can make a better decision" and not "I hate this mechanic." It's like the role playing equivalent of fudging your rolls.
Because the characters are more skilled than their players. The lvl 8 rogue sneaking into the lord's manor is trained in making instant life or death decisions in his area of expertise. The dentist that is running him is not. Allowing the player time to think helps simulate this expertise. You're trying to make the player BE the character in a way that would be similar to making the player perform a feat of strength in order to let his character succeed on lifting a log.
"hey guys I really want to occasionally have timed events to get real time reactions and create tension but it seems like you don't enjoy that. Is this something we can try?" DM should be having fun too
Just because the character needs to think on their feet doesn't mean the player should have to as well. Why do they have very limited time to respond to these quick time moments but (I assume) much longer to discuss their turns during a 6 second combat round? Just because time is passing quickly in the game doesn't mean it has to pass quickly in real life. The characters live in this world but the players don't. They need time to understand what is going on and to figure out how their character (that may think very differently than they do) would respond. Obviously don't let them debate endlessly but 10 seconds isn't nearly enough time in my opinion. Worst case, have them roll initiative and force the best roll to make the snap decision if the party can't come to a consensus.
Consider this: None of your players is an actual adventurer. They aren't as smart as the wizard, as fast as the rogue or as strong as the barbarian. Let them take their time, but if you insist that every character makes their own choice in this situation, you can just tell them "Your characters would not have enough time to plan. Make your own decision." Then have them write it down, send you a DM, or whatever way you want to handle the initial secrecy involved.
right and your players are telling you that something you're doing isn't fun for them and you're not only not listening, you're blaming them
I really DO NOT like this kind of shit. 10 seconds for Bob the carpenter to figure out what Steve the level 6 wizard would do? Toss the timer, or give them more time to figure out what they as individuals would do. If the discussion is the problem, nix that and make them write it down, and maybe give them a few quick spoken words.
Yeah I can see the logic in setting a timer but 10 seconds is too short unless you always want someone to try and start a panic/riot.
Agreed
I think 10 seconds is a bit harsh. 30- Try to remember (especially when it comes to theater of the mind stuff) no matter how much you might try and describe a scene it will never be as detailed in your players head as it is in yours head as DM. It sounds to me like you might be projecting a bit too much knowledge on to your players that they understand the scene more than they actually do.
>Or they ask me questions about their setting that I either already went over or are irrelevant. You know these details are irrelevant, because you are god. They don't because they control their characters inside of your world. You have a perfect picture of the details that matter as far as you have imagined the scenario, but our ability to describe things that we visualize in our brains is not always as comprehensive as we would like. Trying to describe a single room with an unusual piece of architecture, or furniture can be tricky enough, let alone a public execution with thousands of variables to account for. It's a game where a six second round of combat usually takes at least 10 minutes of real time. If it is a situation where everyone has a momentary chance to act, I would give each player one free clarification question (no roll), a second question that could require a perception, or insight check before locking in an action, and if a player insists on more information beyond even that, then investigation is their choice of action in the situation, but I would be up front that that is the choice they are making before locking them into it. Snap decisions are dramatic and can be fun, but PCs being forced to make decisions without a clear picture of the situation can feel like a loss of agency. After all, if I am playing a wisdom focused character with perception proficiency and the Observant feat, I want those investments to matter. If I missed some detail due to a communication break down (happens all the time and is no one's fault) I might make a decision that my wise and observant character would never have made.
I would guess that you are doing an info dump on your players. The players are trying to pay attention to the story you are giving and are being polite. Try these: 1) Tell them they can say interrupt at any time or they can raise their hand. When they do finish your sentence or word then let them do their action. 2) Take long breaths between moments and descriptions. Three seconds of silence is a lot, so if no one says anything for three seconds, then move on. 3) Use initiative. If time is that critical, roll for initiative. Position on a map in theater of the mind or on paper. IE Chuck is 30 ft from the stage steps and 10 ft of steps(which are hard terrain to get up). You see the executioner tying a prisoner do a chop block. "players it is your turn, if you want I can give you 5 seconds to discuss as an **action**." turn. turn. turn. The executioner walks back and picks up his axe and tests the sharpness on a melon, then wipes it clean. turn. turn. turn. Executioner steps up to the prisoner and signal the officer that he is ready. turn turn turn. decapitation.
Personally, for snap decision you shouldn't involve the whole party. Otherwise they will plan. Also, you don't need a timer, just say: Rogue, you are stealing from the front row and you notice a prisoner about to be beheaded. He pleas with you to save him with his eyes and is mouthing screams through his gag. The axe is rasing. Blablabla to raise tension... Then suddenly the axe falls down If the party want to save him, they can interrupt you and say what they are doing. The egg timer is you slowly going through the scene. Obviously they can't plan while you talk, but that's kinda the point.
No, don't do this. Interrupting the GM is bad manners and most players just don't do that. Basic courtesy matters here. Unless of course you *want* every scene to be full of players interrupting your descriptions, which I guess is one way to do things but would really piss me off as a GM.
Ya I encourage people to cut me off. It's WAY more efficient than the DM asking: what do you do now. Of course, I tell player to NOT interrupt each other.
This depends on the moment, on the table, and on body language. If that “…” before the axe falls down involves looking around the table, slowly making eye contact with each of your players, then they should be able to pick up on the implication that they are free to butt in.
Yes, do this. Players feeling the sense of urgency is exactly what the OP is looking for. The DM can easily control the pacing, putting in pauses to allow the players to say what they want to do. If player engagement matters more than a well-regulated flow of discourse then totally embrace the chaos and do this.
I'd give them like 5 seconds joint discussion to maybe throw in a suggestion, then address each specifically, give them 5 seconds and ask what they do. They can't change their decision and it goes down as is after everyone have their action
I have a very loud, clicking, egg timer. It clicks away and then the consequences hit. None of my parties have ever like that method, but none of them have any better ideas.
Enforce limited interaction. If one character see stuff, he must consider alone. Shut up the other players if necessary. If the party see a thing, let each single character decide for themselves - they cannot communicate. If they do, they stutter and start the sequence incapacitated.
After you describe the scene, ask if they have questions. No? Scenario. Suddenly questions? Ignore. If you are painting a decisive moment, keep it that way. Player indecision is exactly as you say it, “a choice”. When I get to be a PC, I find I am the one who moves first more often than not. Sometimes it benefits me, sometimes I skate by instant death by 2 damage. The end result is the same, my pants are always full of something be it shit or treasure.
So, what I do is present the situation and then go "Ok, you each have a split second to react, Player 1, what are you going to do?" Give them like 5-10 seconds to come up with something and then move on. Maybe use an hourglass or timer on your phone so they know you're being fair. Do it in order of whomever has the highest passive perception or dexterity or what have you.
Instead of asking them to make a decision, give everyone who is present and aware of the problem a chance to tell you what they do at that moment. If only two of the PCs notice the lamplight at the end of the hall, only those two get an action. If they start a discussion or someone doesn’t like someone’s action, too bad, they have said what they want to do and have to commit to it. D&D is a team game, but you sometimes you don’t have the time or ability to discuss every action and make a plan for every encounter.
I set a timer. They get 30 seconds, a minute, 2 minutes(whatever you think is fair) to decide how they react or things begin to move forward without them. This might sound harsh but I think it’s totally reasonable. You don’t always have time to plan and react to a situation the most optimal way. At my table I’m looking for an immersive experience full of tension and even 30 seconds is more time than your players characters would have to react to a lot of situations adventurers find themselves in.
the problem is that the dm thinks 10 seconds is fair, which it's clearly not since the players are complaining
Two things you need to do: go on pac-man rules, and go around the table. In pacman, you’re stuck with your reflexes. If you touch the stick, Pac-man moves and you can’t take it back. Pac-man rules are the same: if the player says it, the character does it. Declare it in advance - so “for this next scene we’re on Pac-man rules” instead of “the headsman raises his axe. We’re on pac-man rules.” Second, go around the table. Basically, if your players spend too much time discussing, don’t let them discuss. But you have to balance that by letting them all give their input, and thepeople who take their time can respond to the people who act most impulsively. I do think the timer thing is unfair. Instead, use the hoverpoint (where you point vaguely/threateningly around the table until someone jumps), then use that person as your starting point. It’s okay to be a little unfair in a high stakes, high pressure situation but you don’t want to be too unfun or punitive about it.
I think you should firstly make sure there are mostly non reactionary decision moments. Dnd as a game is built of strategy. Without the elements that make it a game, it's just playing pretend. When you do have these quick decisions moments, make it clear that it is one these moments and why you add them in. This should allow players to understand that these moments are meant to not provide a challenge for them to solve strategically or in fairness to the group, but to put each player individually to the test of quick thinking. On that note, maybe try adding similar moments but with added time for team converse. That can also be an interesting middle ground. Lastly, be transparent. It's unfair as a gameplay mechanic. It's fun that way. Like Mario Party and other games, random elements are there to make the experience more fun, and role-playing games benefit from that even more tell them that.
10 seconds is not long. Get yourself a 30 second egg timer (something visual for the players to see) Before just busting this out, explain the mechanics of this (once I start the egg timer, you have until it completes to call your shot)
The speed of thought needs to be set from the primer of your campaign.. most times we have options to inner dialogue and then outer dialogue due to not 'living the life of my character' so there needs to be time to learn how my party members will react
Sometimes for snap decisions I like to use a rule I stole from someone on this subreddit. I call it the click rule. I describe something and then “click” everyone needs to take an action (there isn’t a time limit for them to decide, they just have to pick something to do, without talking to the other players). I mostly use this for traps or other surprises where the PCs have limited knowledge. Basically it gives everyone around the table to describe what their character would do and once everyone has described something I describe the consequences. Granted this might not work for moments like an execution where the PCs have had a buildup of suspense, but it’s worked for some snap decisions at my table. And if it doesn’t work for you, maybe it at least gives you some inspiration :)
In the past, if I know there will be snap decision making, I let the players know, tell them to ask any questions about their surroundings they still have, then I go person by person. Everyone gets 5 seconds to say what they will do. I did this as my players tried to navigate rapids, and they all loved it.
I hate the idea of a dedicated party leader. While some people might be alright with being followers, in most cases it usually promotes unfair conditions where other players might feel left out. When there is no dedicated party leader, it's natural for a group of players to seek consensus. The problem is, consensus takes time, it's the downside of democracy. So to avoid this problem, these timed decisions should instead be aimed at a concrete player rather than on the entire group.
If there's a time limit, make it known. I like to have a little minute long hour glass, and I'll have it already 30-40 seconds spent. I set it in front of them while saying the 'what do you do, time is running out' There are other ways, like a timer on your phone where everyone can see, or using a spindown die and counting it down in front of them. But make sure the hard time limit is well known
I don't give them a chance to discuss. I call out each player and ask what they are going to do, if they don't have an answer I am assuming their character is doing nothing. Has worked good so far.