Making combat interesting

[otiv]

I like to add uncertainty and chaos by having the players secretly write their actions in combat down on index cards.
We roll initiative after actions are declared.

I do side-based initiative; each side rolls 1d6 against the other, and the side that wins holds that initative for a number of rounds equal to the difference between the two rolls. Then initiative is rolled again.

As for written actions, I have in the past prepared a cheat sheet with basic actions covered by the rules such as attack, parry, charge, set vs. charge, withdraw, retreat, cast spell, turn undead, use item, etc.
I included a 'support' action where a player can choose to support another character, and performs the same action as that character if able.
I have allowed conditional actions like 'if charge, then set vs. charge'.

Even little things like that can make a huge difference.

*edit*

Another trick, used by a friend of mine, is to make weapon choice matter in tactical considerations by taking reach and area into account.
Up to three man-sized characters may fit in a single 10x10' square. This is considered a tight formation.
Two-man sized characters sharing a 10x10' square is considered a loose formation.
One man sized character in a 10x10' square is not in formation.

Now, it is easier to prevent enemies from moving past you while you are in close formation, but you are more limited in the types of weapons you can use. Some weapons, such as long swords, battle axes, and especially flails require a wide clearance to use (which isn't feasible in close formation.) Close formation limits you to shorter weapons, or thrusting weapons only.
Close formation frees up the use of swinging weapons with wide arcs (such as the aforementioned swords and flails) but it is easier for enemies to move past you. So you give some kind of mechanical incentive for characters to use long, arcing weapons. Long weapons strike first in initiative. And if you use some kind of 'cleave' houserule (I think Dave Arneson introduced that, if I am not mistaken) then this would only be applicable on long edged weapons.
'
Most melee weapons can be used only in the front row. Spears and polearms, however, can be used to attack from the second row.

[Deleted]

First way to make OD&D combat interesting is remember the turn is one minute long. It doesn't represent one sword stroke.

Second... don't treat it like a duel, or a series of duels. It's derived from a medieval miniatures wargame... MAKE IT ONE. Combat was NEVER dull for us. Use the same principles that you would on the wargame table; simply lining up your troops and grinding away at each other is how a fool runs an army. Do that against somebody who knows tactics, you'll get handed your @ss in a bucket. Terrain, cover, the rest... exploiting those is how you win battles.

Don't make combat about individuals, make it about troops. Gary told the story shortly before he died about how his kobold band kept wiping out PCs because the players knew no other tactic than "CHARGE!" Teach players the hard way why formed units of troops are superior, why flanking is a good thing, why you want archers on high ground, why the second rank should have long spears.

If you don't want two blocks grinding away at each other, don't set up combats where that will succeed.

[Deleted]

What I reward is not "fancy ad hoc maneuvers." What I reward is "heavy troops form a line to protect the magic users, anchor the flanks, thief sneak out with the crossbow and get behind those pillars there to take a flank shot," et cetera.

[scottenkainen]

I see too many of my combats "devolve into roll-roll-roll" because I find it difficult to switch my thinking between mechanics and descriptive text during complex combats. I have often wished I had a co-DM handling all the dice rolling for me so I could focus on the storyteller elements.

[derv]

This is a fair question to ask. In my opinion, encounters (not just combat) are at the heart of the game. So, you could even broaden your question to include the moments right before a combat develops and the times when no combat occurs at all.

Since you are asking specifically about how to make melee more interesting, my advice is that you must learn to use imagery. In other words, as you or the player roll dice you need to visualize the events of combat unfolding and translate these images, based on the die rolls and player choices, into words that will build up the event. Your words are essential for them being able to visualize things unfolding, as well. He rolled an attack roll of 12, but needed a 13 to hit- "Your blade whizzes through the air intent on severing the head from the Goblins torso. Instead, it harmlessly clips a few hairs from his chin. He's startled, but undeterred as he spits curses."

This is sometimes easier said then done. And at times, it may feel like too much to bother; let's just get on with things. But, if you want to make things more interesting, this is key.

If this does not come naturally for you, an exercise that might help is to write up an after action report. During a game keep track of all the die rolls and outcomes for one of your combat encounters. Then, later on your own, try to translate the data into a short descriptive story of the fight.

Everyone's style for describing things is unique. Try to make it natural for yourself. That's my best advice.

I forgot to mention, a little trash talk can sometimes help add some tension too. You know, having the bad guys making fun of your mother or the way you dress or the way your mother dressed you Actually, any dialogue, whether nasty or nice, lends to imagery in the game.

[luc]

Sept 21, 2016 11:44:45 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

What I reward is not "fancy ad hoc maneuvers." What I reward is "heavy troops form a line to protect the magic users, anchor the flanks, thief sneak out with the crossbow and get behind those pillars there to take a flank shot," et cetera.

I'm sure you've covered this before, but do you usually use miniatures (or sketches, or something else) to convey this, or is it just descriptions that you keep track of?

[Deleted]

Descriptions. Theater of the mind.

Also, I work to train my players to say "Is there something to hide behind/take cover behind/secure a flank" rather than "What's in here."

[Scott Anderson]

I like minis because then you can see which way everyone is facing, which way a wandering monster bumps into you and who it attacks first, whether someone is flanked, etc. It's no more accurate than anything else I guess, but it seems better to us than just imagination.



and also they're just fun to play with

[Deleted]

One of the most effective things I've done to improve combat is to get rid of initiative. Instead of rolling before actions and taking turns, I handle it all at the same time. First, I decide what the monsters are going to do (charge, shoot, move, etc) and then the players tell me what they want to do. Then I imagine what would happen if all those things were going on at once and resolve the individual action in whatever order is most logical or interesting.

My main focus now is on the battle as a whole, rather than the individual parts. For example, if the party rolls well they might drive back the monster's. However, if they roll poorly, the monsters might break through their lines and threaten to surround them. The goal being to make the combat seems as dynamic and chaotic as possible.

Focusing on individual maneuvers, as many modern games do, only seems to make the battles feel more static as monsters and other PCs just stand idly by, patiently waiting their turn. At least that was my experience from more maneuver heavy games such as 3e.

I talk more about this here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj0MGjuGADA


As for die roll results, I use a critical hit system. If the player gets a 20 (or 10 more than he needs to hit), it's a critical and the player can either do extra damage or some other effect such as disarms, shove, trip, grapple, etc. This way the player doesn't need to announce their attempt, but can apply this effect on when successful. This limits how much the player needs to describe their action when telling me their intent but also allows the player to elaborate only when successful. [Monsters do the same thing. Each monster has a special attack that's triggered on a crit roll; wolves knock down, zombies & ropers grab, dragons swallow, etc]

[Zenopus]

I enjoyed the video, hedgehobbit. I really like your idea of using the outcome of the attack rolls to influence the overall thrust (pun intended) of the combat round.

Coincidentally, I just ran a playtest for an OD&D con game last weekend (with my regular game group) and also tried out combat without initiative. Since there's no initiative system clearly described in the LBBs, and to speed up the game for the con, I decided there would be no initiative. Instead, simultaneous combat. Everyone gets to attack even if they die in the round. It's not a death blow, it's just that the outcome of the round is not determined until after everyone has made their attack. Two opponents can kill each other in the same round.

I went even further and had no declarations. With declarations I often feel like each combat round is conducted twice. Instead I just went around the table and had them tell me what they were doing and resolved it then. If they attack, they roll the d20 right away. If casting, the spell goes off right then, since there is no casting time or disruptions mentioned in the LBBs. I only limited casting in that you couldn't cast if hit the round before.

I was using theatre of the mind combat, and the dungeon rooms were small, so I didn't worry too much about exact placement of PCs. If a monster made a hit, or a near hit, I would roll randomly to see which character was being attacked. This also helps with survivability because a monster doesn't necessarily keep hitting the same PC over and over.

[Porphyre]

About initiative:
I like to differenciate individual and collective combat (i-e: individual initiative vs. group initiative) according to the group cohesion.
-If the group acts as a coherent force , I use collective initative and the usual sequence (missile-move-(missile)-melee)
-Otherwise I use individual initiative , with a six-sieded dice adjusted by Move rates
The difference is made eitehr by player choice, or circumstances (if the henchmen roll poorly on morale and break formation, if the front rank is broken/ routed, etc.) teh combat degenerates in individual combat.

In individual combat , players can opt for :
- fight defensively: player forfeits initaitive and makes all attack rolls with a -2, improves AC by two points
- reckless fight: the PC attacks wildly without consideration for his own safety. The players chooses how much bonus he wants to add to the to-hit roll (up to +4), but his opponent(s) gain a similar bonus if he loses initiative.
- charge: move rate is doubled, players gains +2 to hit, but AC penalty is -4
- hold at bay (fighting men only): by swinging menacingly his weapon at the opponent, the player can prevent from attacking a number of ennemies equal to his own level in cumulative HD (a Hero can repel up to for 1HD foes, two 2HD, one 4 HD, etc.)

In collective combat, they can:
- charge: move rate is doubled, +2 "to-hit", passing-by missile damage is doubled
- shieldwall formation : at least four belligerants equiped with shields are necessary: move rate is halved, PC act last in the round, with -2 to-hit, but the AC bonus is +2 against melee attacks and +4 againts missile fire.

[Deleted]

Sept 25, 2016 20:36:03 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

Everyone gets to attack even if they die in the round. It's not a death blow, it's just that the outcome of the round is not determined until after everyone has made their attack. Two opponents can kill each other in the same round.

Empire of the Petal Throne does it this way. You roll for the monster attacks first but characters killed still get their attacks. There is one issue with spell casters as to whether or not you can cast a spell whilst dying. I think not, which is why I use a die roll in those cases but that's just my preference.

I went even further and had no declarations. With declarations I often feel like each combat round is conducted twice.

One of the things I've done to simplify declarations is to treat monsters as groups instead of individuals. You just attack "the orcs" and not, as seems to be usual with D&D DMs, a specific monster. This greatly reduces how technical a player's declaration needs to be (at least IME).

[Scott Anderson]

Hedgehobbit, have you done anything with your ACS?

[kesher]

Sept 25, 2016 20:36:03 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

I enjoyed the video, hedgehobbit. I really like your idea of using the outcome of the attack rolls to influence the overall thrust (pun intended) of the combat round.

Coincidentally, I just ran a playtest for an OD&D con game last weekend (with my regular game group) and also tried out combat without initiative. Since there's no initiative system clearly described in the LBBs, and to speed up the game for the con, I decided there would be no initiative. Instead, simultaneous combat. Everyone gets to attack even if they die in the round. It's not a death blow, it's just that the outcome of the round is not determined until after everyone has made their attack. Two opponents can kill each other in the same round.

I went even further and had no declarations. With declarations I often feel like each combat round is conducted twice. Instead I just went around the table and had them tell me what they were doing and resolved it then. If they attack, they roll the d20 right away. If casting, the spell goes off right then, since there is no casting time or disruptions mentioned in the LBBs. I only limited casting in that you couldn't cast if hit the round before.

I was using theatre of the mind combat, and the dungeon rooms were small, so I didn't worry too much about exact placement of PCs. If a monster made a hit, or a near hit, I would roll randomly to see which character was being attacked. This also helps with survivability because a monster doesn't necessarily keep hitting the same PC over and over.

I REALLY like this... I never thought about the whole feeling "like each combat round is conducted twice", but that's exactly what it feels like!

[Deleted]

Oct 2, 2016 4:07:14 GMT -6 Scott Anderson said:

Hedgehobbit, have you done anything with your ACS?

I still use it in my home game. I'm not sure what else I can do with it. My D&D game has strayed so far from the BtB game that it's hard to peel out a single section. My combat system is contingent upon my hit dice system. My skill system is based on my combat system. My Initiative system is based on how I do modifiers and movement, etc.

Over the past few years, especially since my kids started gaming, I've started to view my role as DM as less of a rules enforcer and more of a die roll interpreter. For example, I don't tell my players any sort of situational die roll modifiers (such as for flanking). Instead, they tell me what their character is trying to do and then roll the dice. I only decide what the modifier will actually be in the case where the die roll is so close to the target number that it would (or could possibly) make a difference.

[aldarron]

Sept 25, 2016 20:36:03 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

....

I went even further and had no declarations. With declarations I often feel like each combat round is conducted twice. Instead I just went around the table and had them tell me what they were doing and resolved it then. If they attack, they roll the d20 right away. If casting, the spell goes off right then, since there is no casting time or disruptions mentioned in the LBBs. I only limited casting in that you couldn't cast if hit the round before.

I never liked the declarations thing, so that's pretty much what I do, difference being that I use weapon type/dex initiative to determine who's turn it is rather than go around the table, and monsters and players turns are completely intermixed based on whoever is fastest or in a position to act.

Sept 25, 2016 20:36:03 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

I was using theatre of the mind combat, and the dungeon rooms were small, so I didn't worry too much about exact placement of PCs. If a monster made a hit, or a near hit, I would roll randomly to see which character was being attacked. This also helps with survivability because a monster doesn't necessarily keep hitting the same PC over and over.

That's an interesting idea. I don't let characters break off a combat unless their FC outnumbers the number of their opponents, but it's something to think about....

[jeff]

Sept 22, 2016 9:51:03 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

One of the most effective things I've done to improve combat is to get rid of initiative. Instead of rolling before actions and taking turns, I handle it all at the same time. First, I decide what the monsters are going to do (charge, shoot, move, etc) and then the players tell me what they want to do. Then I imagine what would happen if all those things were going on at once and resolve the individual action in whatever order is most logical or interesting.

My main focus now is on the battle as a whole, rather than the individual parts. For example, if the party rolls well they might drive back the monster's. However, if they roll poorly, the monsters might break through their lines and threaten to surround them. The goal being to make the combat seems as dynamic and chaotic as possible.

Focusing on individual maneuvers, as many modern games do, only seems to make the battles feel more static as monsters and other PCs just stand idly by, patiently waiting their turn. At least that was my experience from more maneuver heavy games such as 3e.

I talk more about this here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj0MGjuGADA

Sept 25, 2016 20:36:03 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

I enjoyed the video, hedgehobbit. I really like your idea of using the outcome of the attack rolls to influence the overall thrust (pun intended) of the combat round.

Coincidentally, I just ran a playtest for an OD&D con game last weekend (with my regular game group) and also tried out combat without initiative. Since there's no initiative system clearly described in the LBBs, and to speed up the game for the con, I decided there would be no initiative. Instead, simultaneous combat. Everyone gets to attack even if they die in the round. It's not a death blow, it's just that the outcome of the round is not determined until after everyone has made their attack. Two opponents can kill each other in the same round.

I went even further and had no declarations. With declarations I often feel like each combat round is conducted twice. Instead I just went around the table and had them tell me what they were doing and resolved it then. If they attack, they roll the d20 right away. If casting, the spell goes off right then, since there is no casting time or disruptions mentioned in the LBBs. I only limited casting in that you couldn't cast if hit the round before.

I was using theatre of the mind combat, and the dungeon rooms were small, so I didn't worry too much about exact placement of PCs. If a monster made a hit, or a near hit, I would roll randomly to see which character was being attacked. This also helps with survivability because a monster doesn't necessarily keep hitting the same PC over and over.

I did this last night in my 5E game. It was great, I can't believe I haven't tried this already. Combat was fluid. No one felt left out.

My paladin's mount (a white tiger) normally doesn't get any action, but using this narrative technique, I had the tiger swat an arrow out of the air that was aimed at his rider (the paladin). Everyone got a kick out of it. The hobgoblin enemies were firing arrows and I had them miss because the half-orc fighter's sword hit the hob's shoulder, throwing the shot off. It was great, and combat didn't last very long at all. It was WAAAAY faster than previously.

Most of the night was spent in role-playing how the party was going to avoid the 140+ hobgoblins that are hunting them and tracking the movement of the various hobgoblin patrols around the town that they have surrounded. It forced me to think about the hobgoblin tactics and some very nice rolls (nice for the party, not the hobs) kept the hobgoblins off the party's scent, though, only temporarily. Of course, the party doesn't know that the hobgoblins have taken their retribution for the party's guerrilla warfare out on townsfolk (which has a part to play in the greater story).

And for the first time in awhile, my players weren't trying to visualize the combat using distances. I've long tried to get them to perform combat without asking "how far away is enemy x", but I've failed. Last night, they didn't ask. They just flowed through the combat. 15 combat participants only took about 3 minutes to resolve and narrate everything.

All in all, I highly encourage the non-initiative, everyone gets an action every round method. It worked on my first try and worked so well, I'm going to continue to use it.

[tetramorph]

@hedgehobbit, wow what a great video.

You've got a real gift for communication. You must be a good ref.

When I read your posts, I didn't quite get your point and because it was not what I was used to, I decided the best course of action was to ignore it. So, it turns out I am human after all.

But with the resounding responses I watched the video. Rad. And rad to link it to history.

So I'm going to try it tonight with my group. Think good ref thoughts for me and we will see how it goes. Hopefully it will be as cool as you and others here have described it and we will be able to stick with it.

Feels much more intuitive, much more old school. And it matches a general rule of thumb I've finally come down to: resolve nothing with mechanics that could be resolved through role play.

Fight on!

[Stormcrow]

"Combat at best is something to be done quickly so as to get on with the fun." --Gary Gygax

[tetramorph]

@hedgehobbit , in general, things went well.

One thing I discovered pretty quickly, I have to start with myself, with listening to my own mind and its thoughts about what the monsters are going to do before asking the players their plan. If I don't, my monster reaction becomes dull and washed out in trying to manage all their details.

Questions: how do you handle 6+ people this way and still remain sane?

This was a clearing of the land. So they had horses. There was a random Griffon encounter. Horses were attacked and one PC's fine warhorse was soundly eaten. But otherwise, I would always completely forget the horses -- both attacking them and their possible attacks.

Some of the players brought retainers. I would often simply forget them. I would forget to include them in attacks. The players would often forget that they could attack with them!

How do you guys remember stuff like that? And don't just say marching order. We all forget to look at that sometimes!

Otherwise it was a great experiment. It led to some interesting role play, some interesting simultaneous snafus, and the players were far better able to get themselves into bad trouble without me having to multiply monsters or monster HD.

I want to try it 2 or 3 more times before I settle down on it. I want to see if I can get better at it.

[Deleted]

Sept 25, 2016 20:36:03 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

I enjoyed the video, hedgehobbit. I really like your idea of using the outcome of the attack rolls to influence the overall thrust (pun intended) of the combat round.

Coincidentally, I just ran a playtest for an OD&D con game last weekend (with my regular game group) and also tried out combat without initiative. Since there's no initiative system clearly described in the LBBs, and to speed up the game for the con, I decided there would be no initiative. Instead, simultaneous combat. Everyone gets to attack even if they die in the round. It's not a death blow, it's just that the outcome of the round is not determined until after everyone has made their attack. Two opponents can kill each other in the same round.

I went even further and had no declarations. With declarations I often feel like each combat round is conducted twice. Instead I just went around the table and had them tell me what they were doing and resolved it then. If they attack, they roll the d20 right away. If casting, the spell goes off right then, since there is no casting time or disruptions mentioned in the LBBs. I only limited casting in that you couldn't cast if hit the round before.

I was using theatre of the mind combat, and the dungeon rooms were small, so I didn't worry too much about exact placement of PCs. If a monster made a hit, or a near hit, I would roll randomly to see which character was being attacked. This also helps with survivability because a monster doesn't necessarily keep hitting the same PC over and over.

Bitd (1975) I ran all combat as simultaneous. I never used initiative until a few years ago and that was because the players requested it. I find it bites them just as often as it helps them, so it even out anyway and just takes extra time.

[Deleted]

Mar 31, 2017 8:04:25 GMT -6 jeff said:

They just flowed through the combat. 15 combat participants only took about 3 minutes to resolve and narrate everything.

Amazing how fast combat can be, especially when you can go around the table and everyone knows what to expect and are ready when you get to them. The most I have run in one game is with 25-30 players/PCs and their opponents bitd and the combat never was a long drawn out affair, combat was fast when it happened and my group avoided combat whenever possible, but when they did fight they were ruthless, especially the female players.

[Stormcrow]

Apr 1, 2017 9:01:52 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

Questions: how do you handle 6+ people this way and still remain sane?

This was a clearing of the land. So they had horses. There was a random Griffon encounter. Horses were attacked and one PC's fine warhorse was soundly eaten. But otherwise, I would always completely forget the horses -- both attacking them and their possible attacks.

Some of the players brought retainers. I would often simply forget them. I would forget to include them in attacks. The players would often forget that they could attack with them!

How do you guys remember stuff like that? And don't just say marching order. We all forget to look at that sometimes!

Exactly how Gronan said: you don't treat each character as an individual; you treat the party as a party.

Players are the commanders of their henchmen and hirelings. They order them about. So it's perfectly fine to order them about during combat, if they're participating.

Caller: "Swordsman and Vicar take position at the front. The four men-at-arms protect the flank. The Seer stays back and casts a Sleep spell and the Burglar stays back and picks off targets not in the melee. The torchbearer and the two porters stay the hell back."

Ref: "Roll for initiative."

Roller: "Two."

Ref: "The goblins go first. Four of them charge your front, but another four try scurrying around your left flank." Four rolls. "No hits from the ones charging. The goblins on the left and the men-at-arms on the left hold each other off. Swordsman, Vicar, and one man-at-arms can attack the front goblins. Make your rolls."

Etc.

[jeff]

Apr 1, 2017 9:01:52 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

@hedgehobbit , in general, things went well.

One thing I discovered pretty quickly, I have to start with myself, with listening to my own mind and its thoughts about what the monsters are going to do before asking the players their plan. If I don't, my monster reaction becomes dull and washed out in trying to manage all their details.

Questions: how do you handle 6+ people this way and still remain sane?

This was a clearing of the land. So they had horses. There was a random Griffon encounter. Horses were attacked and one PC's fine warhorse was soundly eaten. But otherwise, I would always completely forget the horses -- both attacking them and their possible attacks.

Some of the players brought retainers. I would often simply forget them. I would forget to include them in attacks. The players would often forget that they could attack with them!

How do you guys remember stuff like that? And don't just say marching order. We all forget to look at that sometimes!

Otherwise it was a great experiment. It led to some interesting role play, some interesting simultaneous snafus, and the players were far better able to get themselves into bad trouble without me having to multiply monsters or monster HD.

I want to try it 2 or 3 more times before I settle down on it. I want to see if I can get better at it.

I have a general idea of the monster actions in the encounter. Some are actions independent of what the players do, some will be reactionary.

When I was narrating combat this last time, I would sometimes make the players actions become reactions to what the monsters were doing. So at the beginning of the combat I mentioned, the half-orc spurred his horse through the enemy line and yelled in orcish "help, they're killing anything that isn't human". The monsters, hobgoblins, didn't speak orcish, but they fell for it anyway and watched as he rode through their ranks in amazement. The party had already made their attack rolls and declared their various actions, and they all rolled REALLY well (except the Cleric), so I simply narrated the events of their actions first due to the ride-through of the half-orc. I rolled for all the hobs attack rolls, but described their misses as a result of PCs actions. It was as if the PCs won initiative, but no initiative was rolled.

My cleric cast a fire bolt spell (I'm running 5E currently), and missed. I had targeted him with 2 archers, and one missed and one hit (critical). I believe I narrated it as his firebolt hit one of the arrows in mid-air and it was quickly followed by another that struck the cleric.

I took all the results of the various actions into account each round (combat lasted a grand total of 3 rounds) in the narrative. It wasn't difficult, I let my imagination run wild with the positioning and it was almost natural.

If my PCs had henchman, I would tell them that they are responsible for making sure they act each round. I, as DM, would not call out for henchman actions.

[tetramorph]

Oh, and @hedgehobbit, I realize that this wonderful illustration finally makes sense when you play Judges Guild style (and Arnesonian) rather than with Gygax' initiative system:

[derv]

You want quick, you want interesting?

I've come across this suggestion a few times in older RPG's and have never given it alot of thought. In game time is basically tracked in minutes. A turn of combat is considered to be 1 minute long. Has anyone ever tried running their combats in real time?

The idea is that it's a roleplaying game, so to create that tension that a time sensitive trap or real combat would produce you don't allow the players to casually sit around and yak the issue over. At the point of go, the seconds hand is ticking and the players must roleplay in real time. Hesitation is going to get you drowned as the pit fills with water or get you gutted as the enemy advances and you're still twiddling your thumbs.

Not sure how it would work out in real play. Obviously you have to allow for some dice rolling. I think it would be as stressful on the GM as it would be for the players, myself. But the concept is sound- don't allow your players to piss around when your trying to recreate an environment that is supposedly stressful.

It would probably be wise to clue your players in before hand that that is how you're going to run your encounters. A big old time clock on the table wouldn't hurt either

[Deleted]

Umm... you mean that's NOT how people do it?

I don't give players more than about 15 seconds to decide before they lose their turn. Really speeds up the old decision making process.

[derv]

Fifteen seconds! Whaa! That's already a quarter of a turn squandered! The bloody Minotaur's breathing down your neck about to cave in your brain pan already!

Ha-ha! No, I don't think most GM's run their games this way nowadays. It's usually a casual thought out procedure. Got to think of all the pros and cons. Don't rush me.

Yeah, I think it would make things interesting. Of course it isn't going to work with pbp