Quote from: Exploderwizard on December 14, 2024, 08:30:12 AMFrom what I have observed, especially with the younger generation, the individual turns perpetuate the long combat as the no attention span players zone out when it isn't their turn, then need to figure out everything that has happened since their last turn and decide what to do. Then they take their turn and go back to instagram or whatever......repeat.

I actually measured this with a group of mostly casual players over multiple systems.  Recorded times for combats, running as near the same style as could be done over multiple systems.  Now, granted, it might have been something about those particular players. However, I've since run with other players and gotten even faster results.  Most of these results were using 5 to 10 players, usually 7 to 8.

3E with RAW initiative versus 3E with house rules similar to RC side initiative, character levels mostly in the 5 to 9 range (lower levels mostly before experiment started, and not as sharply divided when tried with Arcana Unearthed):  On average, 35% to 40% faster with sides. Diverges sharply with number of players over 7, where it is not uncommon for a standard fight to balloon into 2 hours with RAW and barely change at all with sides.

4E with RAW initiative versus 4E with house rules similar to RC side initiative, character levels 1 to 7.  (Can't say past that, because we stopped.)  On average, 35% to 40% faster with sides. Yep, diverges when you go over 7 players.

5E with RAW initiative versus 5E with custom side initiative changing as little as possible to get to sides: Despite individuals rolling every round to see what "phase" they act in, still get around 40% improvement with sides, scales pretty flat running even 12 mid-level players at once, where as RAW only holds its own with 4 to 5 players (depending on the players) but is still 25% to 30% slower. In the 5 to 6 player range we are back to around 40% average faster, and then 5E simply falls off a cliff after that.  I suppose it would be possible to keep it under control with 7 to 8 really dedicated, non-ADHD players, but I never had that group.

Home system designed with all of the results above in mind, similar to D&D in some ways, but with sides initiative as the default.  Think a hybrid of BEMCI/RC, AD&D 1E, and a few 3E/5E initiative influences, with some of it ripped out and replaced to make players rolling every round on a d20 for initiative but otherwise phased sides.  8 to 10 players typical, sometimes dropping into the 4 to 5 range (but playing henchmen when they do).  Don't have a comparison any longer, because why would I run something I know doesn't work well?  However, it's typical for some of the same casual players, known for analysis paralysis issues, who sometimes took 2 hours to get through a 3E fight--to do 3 to 5 fights in under 3 hours, some of them major, and the fights only taking about half the time.  We've had 10 players versus 30 monsters done in 20 minutes with no area affect abilities.

In fairness, the system is also even more aggressive than early D&D at restraining hit point bloat and providing early damage boosts.  So something like a goblin nearly always goes down in 1 hit.  So some of that speed has nothing to do with initiative.  However, the biggest thing that sides initiative does is exactly what you said.  It keeps the combat under the threshold where players start to lose attention.  The more players you have, and the more casual ones you have in the mix, the more important this is--but the threshold sits somewhere for every group.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on December 14, 2024, 08:30:12 AMFrom what I have observed, especially with the younger generation, the individual turns perpetuate the long combat as the no attention span players zone out when it isn't their turn, then need to figure out everything that has happened since their last turn and dedcide what to do. Then they take their turn and go back to instagram or whatever......repeat.

I must be admitting that this seems problematic in a very different way which is of no consequence to the system.  Perhaps being in place of some table rules, such as "Do not being on your phone," etc would be more useful to your group?

Quote from: Exploderwizard on December 14, 2024, 08:30:12 AM

Quote from: Omega on December 14, 2024, 02:26:43 AM

Quote from: MerrillWeathermay on December 11, 2024, 03:04:12 PM1. Combat took, on average 3-4 times longer than any other TTRPG on the market (that I had played and tested).

This is a complaint saw on Reddit too.

How the hell are people dragging out 5e D&D combat into freaking hours? When I DMed it combats were done in about the same time as BX or D&D. Bit longer on average. But not by a huge amount.

And I've heard the same complaints lobbied at every other edition and other RPGs too. gurps, Call of Cthulhu, etc.

People. What the fuck are you doing to take that god awful long?

From what I have observed, especially with the younger generation, the individual turns perpetuate the long combat as the no attention span players zone out when it isn't their turn, then need to figure out everything that has happened since their last turn and dedcide what to do.

In this here modern age, I don't fight players who get distracted by their devices. I'm guilty of it myself occasionally. But this here is where I get irate. Someone plays on their phone when it's not their turn, ok. Whatev. But if they completely zone out from the game, that's disrespectful and a waste of the other player's time.

In addition to the 'action bloat' for every character (and many monsters), I found that, by 3e, when the importance of exact placement on the map grid (of both characters/creatures and spell AoEs) and areas of 'threatened zones' became an absolute thing, combat started to really crawl. Most TotM games don't suffer this, but they do carry over some of the action bloat others have mentioned, but I also saw this years earlier in Twilight 2000 2.2 where autofire and area effect (or, good lord, an automatic AoE weapon like a Mk-19 AGL) could take a long time to resolve what is essentially one action.

I have every player roll Initiative each round. This isn't so bad in a VTT. I roll once for the Foes.
Also we began having players make a statement of intent at the start of battle. You've got 6 seconds, you can't really react to what the other folks did in that time. If they kill the beast you were gonna attack you can't just run 30 feet and attack another. This was pushed by two players that wanted more realism (Army Veteran and a retired San Diego Sheriff, both of whom have been in numerous firefights). This was the way we did it in RuneQuest back in the day so I adopted it.
The result is it speeds things up a bit because the statements don't take long and the players are reacting to a set situation and not to the moving situation that occurs as all the other players take their turns.

Quote from: Man at Arms on December 10, 2024, 01:11:34 AMWhy do those of us who appreciate the old ways, like that style of gaming better?

How can it be well explained, in 100 words or less?

For me, yes and no. Yes in the sense that it reinvigorated my passion for D&D-esque games (and fantasy in general) after a very long hiatus, and I will forever cherish it for it. That said, I don't like the majority of OSR games, so aside of a handful of games I've just simply reverted back to pre-3ed edition D&D instead. That is where my heart truly is.

So, I'm going to take this in a slightly different direction.  Not a "What is OSR and why does it feel better in play?" but "Why was pre-3rd edition D&D different than modern trends in RPGs, and how it informs the OSR?"

I think the fundamental misunderstanding by folks who didn't play back then is the kind of game that D&D was for many of us.  It was not a "table-top roleplaying game" as defined by many today.  What we played was far better described as a game of "What if?" in a fantasy setting.  That may seem like a distinction without a difference, but I think the distinction is huge.  It's why so many descriptions of old AD&D games seem like they are contests of logistics instead of heroic adventures.  For us, the rules existed as a method of enforcing consistency, not as patterns of play.  I think modern rules design, in a quest to make games easier to understand, have given the rules too much emphasis.  You roll a d20 + stat + mod for whatever you are trying to do, which enforces the probability of the dice on the world, and not the other way around.  We used dice as arbiters of randomness, not as a structure to define the way randomness existed in-game.

To explain it a little differently, we came up with rules to make sure that we, as players, could get an idea how the universe would react to an action we had previously attempted... not define how a new idea would manifest itself in play.  It's one of the reasons that I think skills have been a fundamentally negative influence on D&D (note: I'm not against skill-based games, especially those defined for them, but D&D was not designed for them).  We would come up with some crazy idea ("I'm going to shoot an arrow at the rope holding up the candle-chandelier and try and drop it on the bunch of them!") and the DM would set a probability, either using some system that made sense ("That's like hitting AC 1, roll to hit" or "Roll under your Dex, with a plus five penalty for the size of the rope") or using a raw probability ("You've got a 15% chance of hitting that, roll percentiles").  The fiction drove the roll.  After a while, some of these patterns got "formalized" as house-rules, but they were always subject to change.  If the probabilities lent themselves to a bell curve, you'd switch the roll to a 2d6 or 3d6 without hesitation.  If I asked a modern 5e player to roll 3d6 plus bonus for a skill check ... (sound of head exploding)...

So, I think one reason that you hear "rulings, not rules" is because people who played back then were attempting to explain the consequences of player choices using dice and probabilities; they weren't playing a game with dice.  As far as the OSR has captured that mentality, it has spawned better play experiences (for the folks who want that experience).

Quote from: SeveredFane on December 14, 2024, 10:12:55 AMI must be admitting that this seems problematic in a very different way which is of no consequence to the system.  Perhaps being in place of some table rules, such as "Do not being on your phone," etc would be more useful to your group?

That's a reasonable rule. But it'd also be reasonable for the player to retort that if the game is interesting enough, they won't be on their phones. It's like when the family is watching Netflix and you have to go to the toilet - sometimes you ask them to stop the movie so you don't miss anything, sometimes you say, "that's fine, just let it play."

Ideally a GM and their players will create a game session where people are engaged the whole time. In a game session - or in my professional area of the gym, for that matter - if someone's on their phone most of the time, I feel it's my fault for failing to engage them with the game, the training process, or other players or gym members. I could ban their phones, or I could get better.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on December 14, 2024, 08:49:27 PM

Quote from: SeveredFane on December 14, 2024, 10:12:55 AMI must be admitting that this seems problematic in a very different way which is of no consequence to the system.  Perhaps being in place of some table rules, such as "Do not being on your phone," etc would be more useful to your group?

That's a reasonable rule. But it'd also be reasonable for the player to retort that if the game is interesting enough, they won't be on their phones. It's like when the family is watching Netflix and you have to go to the toilet - sometimes you ask them to stop the movie so you don't miss anything, sometimes you say, "that's fine, just let it play."

Ideally a GM and their players will create a game session where people are engaged the whole time. In a game session - or in my professional area of the gym, for that matter - if someone's on their phone most of the time, I feel it's my fault for failing to engage them with the game, the training process, or other players or gym members. I could ban their phones, or I could get better.

Ah yes, that is being fair.  I am not of knowing all the details of your games.  I am personally being anti technology at the table - we are not using tablets, computers, digital displays, or any other such being accessories, and it is an understanding all players and GM are having with each other.

I am hoping you are able to work this situation out to your favor and your players favors!

Quote from: SeveredFane on December 14, 2024, 09:45:22 PM

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on December 14, 2024, 08:49:27 PM

Quote from: SeveredFane on December 14, 2024, 10:12:55 AMI must be admitting that this seems problematic in a very different way which is of no consequence to the system.  Perhaps being in place of some table rules, such as "Do not being on your phone," etc would be more useful to your group?

That's a reasonable rule. But it'd also be reasonable for the player to retort that if the game is interesting enough, they won't be on their phones. It's like when the family is watching Netflix and you have to go to the toilet - sometimes you ask them to stop the movie so you don't miss anything, sometimes you say, "that's fine, just let it play."

Ideally a GM and their players will create a game session where people are engaged the whole time. In a game session - or in my professional area of the gym, for that matter - if someone's on their phone most of the time, I feel it's my fault for failing to engage them with the game, the training process, or other players or gym members. I could ban their phones, or I could get better.

Ah yes, that is being fair.  I am not of knowing all the details of your games.  I am personally being anti technology at the table - we are not using tablets, computers, digital displays, or any other such being accessories, and it is an understanding all players and GM are having with each other.

I am hoping you are able to work this situation out to your favor and your players favors!

It's HARD to separate people from their cell phones, for 30 minutes.  Now try to do so, for 3 or 4 hours.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 14, 2024, 10:23:28 AMIn this here modern age, I don't fight players who get distracted by their devices. I'm guilty of it myself occasionally. But this here is where I get irate. Someone plays on their phone when it's not their turn, ok. Whatev. But if they completely zone out from the game, that's disrespectful and a waste of the other player's time.

Sounds borderline like the Social "players" wotc wants to force DMs to put up with. They aren't really there to play, they more just want to hang out.

Quote from: Man at Arms on December 14, 2024, 09:49:45 PM

Quote from: SeveredFane on December 14, 2024, 09:45:22 PM

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on December 14, 2024, 08:49:27 PM

Quote from: SeveredFane on December 14, 2024, 10:12:55 AMI must be admitting that this seems problematic in a very different way which is of no consequence to the system.  Perhaps being in place of some table rules, such as "Do not being on your phone," etc would be more useful to your group?

That's a reasonable rule. But it'd also be reasonable for the player to retort that if the game is interesting enough, they won't be on their phones. It's like when the family is watching Netflix and you have to go to the toilet - sometimes you ask them to stop the movie so you don't miss anything, sometimes you say, "that's fine, just let it play."

Ideally a GM and their players will create a game session where people are engaged the whole time. In a game session - or in my professional area of the gym, for that matter - if someone's on their phone most of the time, I feel it's my fault for failing to engage them with the game, the training process, or other players or gym members. I could ban their phones, or I could get better.

Ah yes, that is being fair.  I am not of knowing all the details of your games.  I am personally being anti technology at the table - we are not using tablets, computers, digital displays, or any other such being accessories, and it is an understanding all players and GM are having with each other.

I am hoping you are able to work this situation out to your favor and your players favors!

It's HARD to separate people from their cell phones, for 30 minutes.  Now try to do so, for 3 or 4 hours.

I do the opposite. Players can use their phones in my Traveller games. I get to use anything from the Traveller Map and the Traveller Wiki in an adventure that they then must look up during a game.

Oh, and the Traveller Wiki has some false entries in it......

I'm not one of those grognards who say everything about the old way was best, but when you move on to new editions and new ways of doing things, it's sometimes difficult to see the value of what was left behind. We didn't just wake up one day and d&d is better, like a software update. Someone looked at the way we were playing and said, "More like this, less like that," and they cobbled together something that they thought was best. But this hobby has always had a lot of creative people making different rules for their table to make it fun the way they want to play it, and it's going to keep going that way as far as I can see.

Greetings!

I get people that have younger children and may need to check in, what have you. That's fine. Generally, however, I tend towards being somewhat anti-technology, and simply tell my friends to turn their fucking phones off, or keep them off to the side of the table. Essentially, don't be fucking playing with your phone while we are gaming at the table.

It isn't that harsh, really. I had college professors that had a constant policy of "Turn Your Phone Off In Class". If not, he would bounce you from the class for the day, and your grade for the day would be an "F". Get three "F's" and he would kick from the class for the entire semester. He argued that being on your phone, being late to class, etc, was rude, unprofessional, and disrespectful to the professor, and the fellow students.

I follow a similar policy with my group at the gaming table. I don't get any flack for it, because my friends all know what I'm about, and why, and they agree. They enjoy being cut off from the fucking phone for a few hours at a time. My policy encourages them and allows them to enjoy being immersed in the game, and not tethered to their fucking phone like they usually are throughout the given day.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on December 14, 2024, 08:49:27 PM

Quote from: SeveredFane on December 14, 2024, 10:12:55 AMI must be admitting that this seems problematic in a very different way which is of no consequence to the system.  Perhaps being in place of some table rules, such as "Do not being on your phone," etc would be more useful to your group?

That's a reasonable rule. But it'd also be reasonable for the player to retort that if the game is interesting enough, they won't be on their phones. It's like when the family is watching Netflix and you have to go to the toilet - sometimes you ask them to stop the movie so you don't miss anything, sometimes you say, "that's fine, just let it play."

Ideally a GM and their players will create a game session where people are engaged the whole time. In a game session - or in my professional area of the gym, for that matter - if someone's on their phone most of the time, I feel it's my fault for failing to engage them with the game, the training process, or other players or gym members. I could ban their phones, or I could get better.

The way to do that is to ditch systems that create this disengagement to begin with. Of course then you have players who won't play if it isn't their preferred system. The harsh reality is the need to ditch shit players.