Thoughts on wandering player attention
Over on his "GM tips" blog, Sly Flourish, Mike Shea has posted an article about How to Get Back Your Players' Attention. I commented, because I found one piece of that advice a little counter-productive.. and I will share that comment with you here.
Much of Mike's advice works for me, I like the idea of keeping the initiative order in view… I might have to try the cards on the top of the screen. (I normally use a Paizo Combat Pad and I've experimented with a spreadsheet combat manager on my laptop.) Not so thrilled with the buddy system... if you're having that much trouble keeping their attention, I'm afraid that this would be a Band-Aid and not a cure for the real problem.
But the one thing I think it's going to work is having players pre-roll attacks and damage before their turn comes up. On one level, I have a player that I suspect would re-roll or declare that he used an at-will and not his daily if he thinks I wasn’t looking… he’s not my typical player, but he’s a friend and generally fun to play with, despite his competitive view of the game.
But on a more important level, a lot of the fun of such a tactical game is watching it unfold as it happens… the dice are what create the tension of combat, and pre-rolling the dice removes the tension out of the moment. It’s the difference between the whole group looking on, waiting to see if you’re going to hit the big bad at that critical moment (”A 20… 18 points of damage, eat cold steel, dragon!”) and phoning in your results… (”Yeah, wait until his turn’s over. I’m about to crit the dragon for 18 points of damage… it’ll be cool.”) By the time you declare your results, the energy has been drained out of it.
It’s almost like knowing if the batter is going to hit the ball before he steps up to the plate… if you already know the result, there’s no anticipation, no elation or let-down when he hits or misses.
What little roleplaying that happens during a combat comes from everyone paying attention and being in the moment… having players pre-roll is asking them to stop paying attention to what’s happening right now and think about what’s coming up. And that's the opposite of what we're trying to do here... get the players to be in the moment and pay attention to what's happening at the table right now.
My thoughts are, if you’re having this much trouble with players’ attention wandering, you probably have too many players at the table, or the DM is running with too many monsters (or, if you’re me, you’re taking too long to make up your mind about what to do).
My solution is to ban the iPhones and Blackberries if they’re causing trouble (if they can’t distract themselves, they might actually get interested in what other people are doing), cut down to a manageable number of players, cut all monster hit-points by 1/3rd so that the “it’s all over, but the fat lady still has 23 hit points” tail end of combat is minimized. Keep things moving fast and keep them interesting, so that the players find what’s going on at the table more interesting than texting their girlfriends or checking the latest sports scores.
The player’s side of the game is not so complex that he needs a computer to keep track of his character. I’d rather players use pencil and paper, and avoid the distraction of a computer interface just to keep track of hit points and the minimal resources of 4E. As a DM, I’m reluctant to use a computer on my end… the interface itself can become distracting, when it takes longer to find the right tab/window and position in my document to make a note than it does to scribble something down on my notepad. I’ve experimented a bit, but I haven’t found/developed the solution that doesn’t “take me away from the table” when I interact with it.
Pages
Recent Posts
- Man vs Minecraft, achievements and goals
- What needs “fixed” in Minecraft: Day/Night, Water
- What needs “fixed” in Minecraft: Mob drops
- Can I infringe on copyright “from memory”?
- Who owns my code?
August 31st, 2009 - 20:16
I have to agree with you on the pre-rolling. I feel that it takes away from the game and gives them even more time to fiddle around whether it be on their iPhone or laptop. With no anticapation of the action, there’s no real reason to pay attention during the combat. Plus I’m a bit of a stickler and prefer to witness all roles made. The iPhone die rolling app has taken some time to get used to since a few players I game with use it.
Distracted players can be a bit disheartening to a DM, especially when you’ve invested time into writing what you feel is a good scenario. I’ve found that the book Robin’s Law of Good Gamemastering to be an awesome resource for the new DM as well as old no matter what system you choose to run.
I do like the tip about stressing immediate actions and I will definitely be implementing that to pull in the stragglers of the group next week.
I’ve never used a laptop to run my games but that’s only because I’m still running a T23 and afraid of being mocked at the table by those with the fancy netbooks. ;)
August 31st, 2009 - 21:56
I have T42p that belongs to work… it’s no hotrod, but it’s a solid little machine. I also have an Eee PC 900 refurb that cost me $150, and it’s not all that… it’s slow, not so much because of the processor, but because the solid-state drive is very slow. And I can’t touch-type on it… so I mostly leave it by my bed and use it to read blog posts I’ve bookmarked for later when I’ve got a few minutes before bedtime. It’s too hard to use comfortably that I can’t imagine trying to do GM stuff on it. Might be able to manage a character sheet as a player without being more trouble than it’s worth, though. (The $150 refurb was mostly to see if I’d use it before I invested in a more recent model… but I don’t think so. I like the smaller screen and better portability, but I need a larger keyboard.)
“Robin’s Laws…” is a great book. I should go find mine and reread it. Heck, I should get around to sitting down with the 4E DMG and read it in detail. :)
September 1st, 2009 - 05:36
I just read a post on Ars Ludi that handles the problem differently.
http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/72/initiative-the-silent-killer/
The short version is, don’t use individual initiative. Figure out if the monsters or PCs are going first, then when the PCs act let them sort out what they are doing together.
September 1st, 2009 - 09:14
That’s an interesting approach… I basically did that with most of my Fudge games, sometimes asking for intent and then resolving everything in a “natural” order. And I see the “it’s your turn, everyone else butt out” problem that unintentionally discourages players from collaborating. But I think if there is a problem with players “moving individually” and not cooperating, that it’s probably better addressed by talking about the problem and agreeing to cooperate better.
In my last group, the problem wasn’t getting people to pay attention… it was actually getting the players to *stop* cooperating as if their characters were telepathically linked and to only act on what other characters shouted at them from across the battlefield. Removing initiative would encourage even stronger “telepathic planning”. And pushing them toward only acknowledging “battlefield knowledge” pushes them toward paying more attention anyway.
It’s worth noting that the referenced article was written before 4E. I don’t know how it would have affected 3E, but pieces of 4E depend heavily on the initiative order… many class features, feats and powers would be negated, and the “flavor” of certain classes/builds and monsters would be removed or diminished. It would significantly change the way players built characters and the tactics of the game. (I’m afraid it would break the game in certain places if it weren’t tweaked… as a DM, getting to move eight minions as a group without the players reacting in the middle of it, combined with Delay Action, could be devastating with monsters that get “mob” bonuses.)
I don’t recall which it was, but I once played a game in which initiative was determined for each side, and the *losers* declared their actions but didn’t act, then the winners got to act based on knowing the losers’ intent, then the losers got to act. That might work, but I think it’d be painful for the DM with a lot of foes to keep track of.
September 1st, 2009 - 22:56
We roll the damage dice along with the to hit die, it only speeds things up by a tiny bit but it does add up.
We also have vertical white board to write int. and temporary effects on, using a post it to mark whose turn it is. Computers are great but for this kind of thing analog is the way to go…
The key thing we noted during our combats that slows things down is the cross chatter. One of our players likes to drone on about rules and what ifs, and if onlys, and how he built a cool blah blah blah. Had a comment for every action. Nice guy, smart, good roll player, and occasionally funny too… during combats I wanted to tape a bag over his head… Couldn’t give you a yes or no answer if you had a gun to his mothers head. ~ sorry I wandered off for a moment :) But it is a good example of what can slow down a combat, the non-combat related chatter.
So we started a no-cross chatter rule. Ideally during combat only the person whose turn it is and the DM is talking, but because thats not always possible, or fun for that matter, we compromised. If it’s roll playing talk, go for it, if it’s a shout for help in the form of a tactical suggestion, thats good too, if it’s a quick and concise rules question/answer, fine. If it’s a story from our past, an unnecessary rules elaboration or argument, a side conversation, then we zip it. Basically when we are in combat we should act like we are in combat, not chatting around a table. Keep that for after the action is over.
It’s worked out pretty well so far without cutting down the enjoyment at all. We’ve managed to shave about 10 min off what used to take almost an hour.
September 1st, 2009 - 23:18
It never seems to be the rules themselves that cause delays for me (unless we’re still learning the ropes)… the combat flows as it flows, and trying to push it to move faster (when everyone is paying attention and acting on cue) sucks some of the fun out of it for me. As for you, it’s always been the side chatter that kills us.
I think one of the hardest things about stopping side-chatter is feeling like you have permission to interrupt… even when everyone agrees, I feel really rude (even as GM) cutting someone off in the middle of a story.
A few years ago, I bought a “desk bell”… you know, “Ring Bell for Service,” gently tap the little button on top twice for the express purpose of interrupting side-chatter without using rude words. Someone launches into a story, any player can reach out and ring the bell, and we move on. I think it worked, but that group didn’t last very long and I never brought the bell back out. I think I may if this new group has trouble. (It’s always a problem with new groups… new audience, lots of old stories to tell all over again.)
Even then, my biggest problems with side-chatter hasn’t been in combat, but outside of it… where shy players get uncomfortable with the roleplaying (“performance anxiety”, “stage fright”, whatever) and start talking about something else to avoid engaging the scene. As GM, I’ve even done this… when there’s going to be an audience with the King and I don’t have a clear idea of “who” the King is or what he’s going to say, I realize I unconsciously delay starting the scene by allowing existing side-chatter to drag on for far longer than it should.
Much of the trouble in my games has to do with recognizing what *I* am doing wrong that encourages the problem. I think lots of GM advice about how to “fix” the players is missing the mark… putting the blame on the players for something that actually belongs on the GM’s shoulders. I think players should be pro-active about making the game run smoothly and ensuring that other players are having fun as well, but a lot of that falls to the GM when the players aren’t helping pull the cart.
September 2nd, 2009 - 09:38
I’ve found that the key to keeping things focused, particularly during combat, is to keep engaging the players’ collective imaginations during the event – keep things happening, toss out evocative (and brief, if possible) descriptions of details, engage them on a level that makes them anxious to act. This has the added benefit of making the scene more “real” for everyone involved, including yourself.
I have some side-chatter issues at my sessions, but they tend to dissipate after the first hour or so, unless I allow a lull in the action… often to collect my thoughts or review my material. Then I have to reaquire the group’s attention, which frequently requires a dramatic gesture or statement of some sort. It’s a bit of work, but very rewarding.
Since I manage my game electronically, I use a software combat manager. I used to note initiative orders on a dry-erase board behind me (which, by the way, I agree is an invaluable tool for running games, as it gives you the opportunity to note or illustrate anything that may be of aid to the players), but it became too much work going back to the board to note changes. Besides which, I find that most of my players are fairly cognizant of their place in the initiative order, who goes before and after them and such, since I’m frequently called out on it if I accidentally try to skip somebody.
Before the computer, I actually used initiative cards (based on a design by The Game Mechanics) with their characters’ vital stats on them, which I had the players keep in hand until combat, when they rolled initiative, noted it in a box in the top-right corner, and handed them to me. I then stacked them in order with the opponents and just rotated through them. I turned them sideways to indicate delays or readied actions, and simply removed them when they were out of the fight.
I don’t know about the current system, but I think the old White Wolf Storyteller games had an initiative system where you announced your intentions from slowest to fastest, then performed the actions accordingly, which would invariably invalidate the intentions of those who went last.
I understand the performance anxiety with roleplaying, particularly since it’s a point I work to coach players through as thoroughly as I can. A player who can relax into their character is generally going to have more fun at the table. I still have self-conscious players, but it gets better as the group gets comfortable with each other. I try to quash any such feelings in myself when it’s time to focus on the NPCs, but any uncertainty about the character’s aims and needs, conditioned responses, behavioral patterns, knowledge and wisdom and force of personality – not to mention any confusion about what precisely I want them to accomplish in the encounter, and what information I do or do not want them to come away with – can be paralytic. Then I’ll do the same thing you’re describing… I’ll stall. Bad habit. The best way to deal with this, in my experience, is to simplify things. What’s the point of the encounter? What’s the NPC thinking/feeling right this second? What impression do I want the players to have?
It’s a bit of a dance, since roleplayed social interaction is a major element of plot development in my game. The manner in which I present an NPC will often be made to give a certain impression of them to the players… what they don’t say can be just as important as what they do.
September 3rd, 2009 - 23:10
Yeah, that tossing out details in combat is a tough one… the GM’s already got so much to keep track of, it’s easy to get lost in the mechanics of running the game.
The “keeping things real” for myself part is part of where I fall down… I find myself having trouble getting into the heads of the kobolds and understanding just how they ought to be reacting to these invaders that are slaughtering them. I think the biggest problem is the dissonance of “they should run away!” fighting the “not killing all the monsters is messy”. I run into assumption clashes about things like “evil’… are all goblins irredeemably evil and therefor all should be killed on sight? I don’t like “irredeemably evil” as a racial trait… but when you throw in the issues of morality with players that assume the monsters are there just to be killed, the game goes pear-shaped. And some players don’t like it when the Horrible Monster That Must Be Evil! howls in pain and agony as they hack it to bits.
I basically destroyed a fledgling campaign when the heroes attacked a relatively powerful but normally-timid creature made bold by hunger… the creature, whose prey had been wiped out by the side-effects of evil magic, was a clue to a mystery. And they hacked it to pieces because it was “a monster”… I described the horrible wounds they inflicted on it, its howls of pain and how it was so focused on fleeing that it wasn’t attacking them. Yet they blocked its path and insisted on cutting it to pieces before it could get away. A couple of the players were green around the gills by the end… I’d done a really good job of describing just how horrible the act was. But when given a chance to avoid it (the old woman on the roof of her hut waiting for it to go away even told them it meant no harm), they had carried through… and instead of accepting that they’d made a mistake, they blamed me for getting too graphic. They Were Just Doing Their Jobs. How were they supposed to know that the “monster” didn’t “need” to be killed? We changed gamemasters after that session, and I dropped out a few weeks later.
I think that’s another reason I like undead… no moral checks, no complex motivations and emotions, no running away. And no issues of morality… we can ALL agree that undead should be killed. :)