Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860654Couldn't they still coordinate and have a strategy meeting BEFORE rolling initiative when they're all declaring what they'll do? Or do you allow that and it just ends up being less time anyway.

Of course they can still coordinate. BUT, in the middle of combat is not the place to do that in my games. I instead give them a very brief period to shout things at each other before I start going around the table asking for Declarations (often 6 seconds, as many games use that time size for rounds).

My reasons for doing this are several:

* Multiple game abilities out there grant longer periods to contemplate, or even coordinate, actions. I have no interest in stepping upon the toes of such abilities, rendering them useless.
* I have a vested interest in speeding up the game, especially during crisis moments. Our time to play is smaller nowadays.
* Players are still welcome to coordinate strategy, but it is best done outside of crisis moments, like combat. Besides devising stratagems and calling them out is great immersive fun ("Everyone, get into Z formation, Z formation!").
* Strategic dithering drags the game and often sucks the immersion out for others.
* Nervous players, normally proxies for more dominant players, freeze up looking for direction. By applying pressure, there's no time except to act. Eventually those players are rewarded for doing anything else and learn to find their own voice.
* Dominant players lose control of other PCs, culling their metagame action economy.
* Everyone will make mistakes, because things are under far less control. This kills much metagaming dead.
*There will be memorable opportunities -- and accidents -- due to this lowered control.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860656Also what's your guys take on the party spending a long time planning something?

Should the goal be to keep a brisk pace and start throwing random encounters at them if they start going around in circles over their plans?

Or is it just as fine if they spend 4 hours just debating what to do and then do nothing.

If at a loss to control the table, Egg Timer them.

In moments of down time, in safe areas, they are free to strategize as they please. I don't hamper that; I encourage it, in fact.

In moments of crisis, with the threat clear and present, they are free to dither while the danger keeps striking at them. By then tactical training takes over. Act or suffer the consequences.

In moments of danger, such as a tense area, remind them that time ticks on by. So exploration in such areas has a time element, but it is of medium-size, thus there is more time to manage planning. But not so much time as to not expect surprises, like wandering monsters.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860668How do you handle movement?

Suppose you have a Sorcerer next to a wagon and as the GM I control 4 Orcs that want to attack the Sorcerer. I say the Orcs move X spaces to the tile where the Sorcerer is near the wagon and attack him; the Sorcerer happens to say that he moves somewhere else and attacks another enemy.

Do the Orcs now just run to where the Sorcerer was even if he's not there anymore (he moved somewhere before them) or do you take it as an abstract "the Orcs try to go after the Sorcerer, wherever he happens to be at the time" thing.

Both Location and Object are useful target descriptors. Keep both, as it is a natural expression of how we use language now. Sometimes you want to hold the space where the doorway is. Sometimes you want to gun for the archer in the back row, regardless where they move. Stating what you mean is wonderfully clear as it is right now

First off, GM never openly Declares his strategy to the players. This prevents metagaming on the players' part.

Second off, GM decides NPC Declaration -- quietly in their head -- before PC Declaration. This prevents metagaming on the GM's part.

As for your example, I assume the GM is having the "Orcs target the Sorcerer."

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860672But handling it abstractly sounds like a good solution there. Go after the target, not the positioning. What do you do if they had 2 conflicting goals in mind though?

Like suppose I declared that I want to move towards an enemy next to a lever, and attack him, and then flip the switch next to us. But the enemy ends up moving far away from the lever. Do I now go after the enemy or the lever? Would the GM just ask for more clarification when that comes up as the moves are being resolved?

You resolve the primary intent before the secondary or tertiary intent, and so on.

So, if you want to hit the enemy and flip the switch in 5e, first I would ask a) your 1st priority, b) does order matter over convenience, and c) if you have enough actions to do so.

i.e. (5e) Third lvl Rogue Thief with Fast Hands, wants to stab with their dagger the orc next to the lever, flip the lever, and palm the key from the table 10' away to the side. They are 20' away from the orc+lever location. I ask about priorities about targets and order v. convenience. Player responds that flipping the lever is mission critical, and palming the key is secondary, hitting the orc becomes a tertiary opportunity.

Orc went first to stab at the mage, moving 10' away from both the lever and the Rogue. Since the Rogue was 20' away beforehand from the square where the Orc and lever were, suddenly distance and order matters. But with established priorities I as GM can easily resolve this.

The lever is done first, move 20' up to the lever and use "One Interact with the Environment." There is now 10' left, enough to reach the orc or the table, but not both. The key on the table is palmed second as a Bonus Action, move 10' to the table and Sleight of Hand (DEX) check to resist others' notice. No movement is now left.

Finally the attack upon the orc is done third as an Action. Since the orc is 10' away, and the dagger has no Reach, the orc is too far for melee. But the dagger can be thrown (20'/60'), so the attack is still doable. The dagger is thrown at the orc, and an attack roll is made.

philip is absolutely right that you are asking the player to clarify intent. This makes things so much easier, as the interface is basic language instead of a game system. All you're adding is the expectation of greater descriptive clarity from your players -- to talk more about what they're doing and why.

I'm enjoying your elaborations on the fog of war.

Quote from: Opaopajr;860789Second off, GM decides NPC Declaration -- quietly in their head -- before PC Declaration. This prevents metagaming on the GM's part.

One can't stress too much the importance of this. On the plus side for the PCs, since the GM is usually running a lot more people than any of the players, this sort of clock usually favors the players. On the minus side, its a lot easier for the GM to keep the NPCs organized. Depending on how tactically minded your players are, this may require the GM to use something like command rolls for the NPCs to see if their side makes mistakes in following orders.

Quote from: Bren;860786Definitely sounds cooler. You could go the acronym route:

DFTR: Declare First, Then Resolve. Which is pronounced defter, so it would be the defter initiative system.

I may have to try that for H+I. I could use rotating clockwise order of declaration so it isn't always the same player declaring first or last.

Oh and thanks for explaining and I hope you feel better soon.

Defter. That does sound cool. Hmm... Still rather dig Fog of War, though. It's all going to end up jargon after all, be it named or acronym.

As for rotating clockwise/counterclockwise, great idea. Players eventually metagame even those little bits. And it's showing there is no GM favoritism, while keeping them on their toes.

Thanks for the well wishes. I pulled my back over something stupid right at the start of my weekend: throwing a used facial tissue into the garbage. Not from dancing until 2 AM, not from moving boxes around in the garage, but from tossing facial tissue away from me. ... :mad:

Quote from: Opaopajr;860799I pulled my back over something stupid right at the start of my weekend: throwing a used facial tissue into the garbage. Not from dancing until 2 AM, not from moving boxes around in the garage, but from tossing facial tissue away from me. ... :mad:

My suggestion is lie about the reason. No one wants to hear that explanation. And doubly no one really wants to have to give that explanation.

It sounds much better if you say that last weekend you were hanging out out in a rough, seedy biker bar and you pulled a muscle while reaching too far over the bar to pick up the shotgun behind the bar.

Is it easy to remember an entire turn's worth of declarations before resolving them? I can imagine myself forgetting some of the details halfway through when dealing with 8 people.

Then again this would only be an issue if someone tries to be shifty and change up their answer when you ask.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;860832Is it easy to remember an entire turn's worth of declarations before resolving them? I can imagine myself forgetting some of the details halfway through when dealing with 8 people.

Then again this would only be an issue if someone tries to be shifty and change up their answer when you ask.

Nope and yep.

That's one reason I say that what constitutes a 'turn' shouldn't be so complex when you've got a large group of players (or even a large set of independently acting units).

Quote from: Phillip;860963That's one reason I say that what constitutes a 'turn' shouldn't be so complex when you've got a large group of players (or even a large set of independently acting units).

Normally it isn't, but 5e has lots of "player empowerment" widgets. Multiple attacks are easy to suss out, just need to give me targets and priorities. But the extra bonus action, reaction, and extra actions atop that can get weedy.

However that's on the table to be understanding to the GM for running a large table with a mechanically rules-medium intensity game.

A good secret trick is index cards! Passes notes, keeps secrets, and good for quick priority reminders. They're not just for GMs anymore! I know what it's like to be in a 10+ table and drowned out by the noise.

How would "fog of war" handle Legendary actions?  I'm looking at a Lich right now, wondering where it's abilities would get slotted in.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;861111How would "fog of war" handle Legendary actions?  I'm looking at a Lich right now, wondering where it's abilities would get slotted in.

They are just that, legendary, doing things outside the normal turn framework.

Legendary Creatures
A legendary creature can do things that ordinary creatures can’t. Legendary creatures can take special actions outside their turns, and a few can exert power over their environment, causing extraordinary magical effects to occur in their vicinity.
Legendary Actions
A legendary creature can take a certain number of special actions—called legendary actions—outside its turn. Only one legendary action option can be used at a time and only at the end of another creature’s turn. A legendary creature regains spent legendary actions at the start of its turn. It isn’t required to use its legendary actions, and it can’t use legendary actions while incapacitated.
(Basic 5e D&D DMG/MM, Nov 2014. p.6.)

They are like Reactions, which by the way everyone still retains and use normally. You don't need to declare reactions as they are presumed at a faster (reflexive) speed than normal action planning. They occur when the actor indulges in the opportunity as it presents itself.

Legendary actions would be treated similarly except for three things:
a) they are defined as an action (this matters).
b) their timing window is explicitly curtailed to "end of another creature's turn."
c) their usage within said window is limited to "only one at a time" per "end of another creature's turn."

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;861111How would "fog of war" handle Legendary actions?  I'm looking at a Lich right now, wondering where it's abilities would get slotted in.

The nature of Legendary Actions (taken only at the end of another creature's turn*) make them seem to me like special Reactions with a more general type of trigger.  As such, I don't think the GM needs to do a particular behind-the-scenes declaration for them; decide to use them as appropriate in the moment.  

I am of the opinion that big, bad, solo-y monsters should be perhaps a little nastier than they are, and I would think that in your context of dealing with a larger group of players this is even more true. So, the more flexibility and just-in-time decision making on the monster's part, the more better badder the monster will be.

* Are there any exceptions to this, I wonder?  I haven't noticed any.

Quote from: Opaopajr;861121They are just that, legendary, doing things outside the normal turn framework.
...

I got scooped!

You both helped with that explanation so thanks.