Will rerolling initiative each round stop meta-gaming about initiative?
$begingroup$
I am thinking of implementing Speed Factor Initiative, but I don't really want to use all of it.
Speed Factor Initiative "RAW" would work like this:
- Everyone must declare an action prior to rolling
- Initiative is rolled after each round
- There are additional modifier to be added based on weapon type and size
While I love the unpredictability of this initiative variant, I am not sure that my player are experienced enough to declare their action this early. I am looking at only taking the portion of this variant that causes everyone to re-roll each round.
I don't want them to have to declare their action ahead of time, or make the formula for initiative more complex.
Has anyone else tried this? Did it work? My main purpose is to kind of stop meta-gaming naturally. Because there are some brand new player, I want them to be able to converse with the people who have played before, but I don't want a conversation like this to happen:
PC1: I don't really know what to do here
PC2: Well if I move here and
you move there we can flank the goblin. Because we have higher
initiative, he won't be able to act before this happens
While this is constructive for PC1 to learn some of these battle tactics, I think by simply mixing up initiative each turn, that will be enough to really thwart the meta-gaming because they don't really know who acts when.
dnd-5e initiative metagaming optional-rules
$endgroup$
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
I am thinking of implementing Speed Factor Initiative, but I don't really want to use all of it.
Speed Factor Initiative "RAW" would work like this:
- Everyone must declare an action prior to rolling
- Initiative is rolled after each round
- There are additional modifier to be added based on weapon type and size
While I love the unpredictability of this initiative variant, I am not sure that my player are experienced enough to declare their action this early. I am looking at only taking the portion of this variant that causes everyone to re-roll each round.
I don't want them to have to declare their action ahead of time, or make the formula for initiative more complex.
Has anyone else tried this? Did it work? My main purpose is to kind of stop meta-gaming naturally. Because there are some brand new player, I want them to be able to converse with the people who have played before, but I don't want a conversation like this to happen:
PC1: I don't really know what to do here
PC2: Well if I move here and
you move there we can flank the goblin. Because we have higher
initiative, he won't be able to act before this happens
While this is constructive for PC1 to learn some of these battle tactics, I think by simply mixing up initiative each turn, that will be enough to really thwart the meta-gaming because they don't really know who acts when.
dnd-5e initiative metagaming optional-rules
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Could you clarify what kind of actions you consider "meta-gaming about initiative"? I understand what you're proposing, but I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to stop.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
9 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
I'm not entirely convinced your current example is really an example of meta-gaming. (Sounds perfectly reasonable for one character to see another hesitate and, from an 'in-universe' perspective, shout "Get that goblin! You flank left!" before charging forward himself).
$endgroup$
– PJRZ
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I am trying to stop full conversations about what to do next in combat. In previous games I have run, the players spend quite a bit of time conversing about what to do next and talking about scenarios what could happen until eventually, they find the highest combination of skill they can put together. The example maybe wasn't the best. I was just trying to highlight that during combat there will be teaching of new players that could evolve into meta-gaming. I am hoping that by mixing up initiative, they can still talk about it, without having a sure plan that will 100% after the conversation
$endgroup$
– SaggingRufus
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Are you asking if people have used Speed Factor variant and what they're thoughts are on it? Or are you asking something else?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
9 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
This may be an X-Y Problem. Why don't you describe the concern you've got and ask for solutions?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
9 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
I am thinking of implementing Speed Factor Initiative, but I don't really want to use all of it.
Speed Factor Initiative "RAW" would work like this:
- Everyone must declare an action prior to rolling
- Initiative is rolled after each round
- There are additional modifier to be added based on weapon type and size
While I love the unpredictability of this initiative variant, I am not sure that my player are experienced enough to declare their action this early. I am looking at only taking the portion of this variant that causes everyone to re-roll each round.
I don't want them to have to declare their action ahead of time, or make the formula for initiative more complex.
Has anyone else tried this? Did it work? My main purpose is to kind of stop meta-gaming naturally. Because there are some brand new player, I want them to be able to converse with the people who have played before, but I don't want a conversation like this to happen:
PC1: I don't really know what to do here
PC2: Well if I move here and
you move there we can flank the goblin. Because we have higher
initiative, he won't be able to act before this happens
While this is constructive for PC1 to learn some of these battle tactics, I think by simply mixing up initiative each turn, that will be enough to really thwart the meta-gaming because they don't really know who acts when.
dnd-5e initiative metagaming optional-rules
$endgroup$
I am thinking of implementing Speed Factor Initiative, but I don't really want to use all of it.
Speed Factor Initiative "RAW" would work like this:
- Everyone must declare an action prior to rolling
- Initiative is rolled after each round
- There are additional modifier to be added based on weapon type and size
While I love the unpredictability of this initiative variant, I am not sure that my player are experienced enough to declare their action this early. I am looking at only taking the portion of this variant that causes everyone to re-roll each round.
I don't want them to have to declare their action ahead of time, or make the formula for initiative more complex.
Has anyone else tried this? Did it work? My main purpose is to kind of stop meta-gaming naturally. Because there are some brand new player, I want them to be able to converse with the people who have played before, but I don't want a conversation like this to happen:
PC1: I don't really know what to do here
PC2: Well if I move here and
you move there we can flank the goblin. Because we have higher
initiative, he won't be able to act before this happens
While this is constructive for PC1 to learn some of these battle tactics, I think by simply mixing up initiative each turn, that will be enough to really thwart the meta-gaming because they don't really know who acts when.
dnd-5e initiative metagaming optional-rules
dnd-5e initiative metagaming optional-rules
edited 9 hours ago
SevenSidedDie♦
208k31666943
208k31666943
asked 10 hours ago
SaggingRufusSaggingRufus
1,114922
1,114922
2
$begingroup$
Could you clarify what kind of actions you consider "meta-gaming about initiative"? I understand what you're proposing, but I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to stop.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
9 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
I'm not entirely convinced your current example is really an example of meta-gaming. (Sounds perfectly reasonable for one character to see another hesitate and, from an 'in-universe' perspective, shout "Get that goblin! You flank left!" before charging forward himself).
$endgroup$
– PJRZ
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I am trying to stop full conversations about what to do next in combat. In previous games I have run, the players spend quite a bit of time conversing about what to do next and talking about scenarios what could happen until eventually, they find the highest combination of skill they can put together. The example maybe wasn't the best. I was just trying to highlight that during combat there will be teaching of new players that could evolve into meta-gaming. I am hoping that by mixing up initiative, they can still talk about it, without having a sure plan that will 100% after the conversation
$endgroup$
– SaggingRufus
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Are you asking if people have used Speed Factor variant and what they're thoughts are on it? Or are you asking something else?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
9 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
This may be an X-Y Problem. Why don't you describe the concern you've got and ask for solutions?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
9 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
2
$begingroup$
Could you clarify what kind of actions you consider "meta-gaming about initiative"? I understand what you're proposing, but I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to stop.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
9 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
I'm not entirely convinced your current example is really an example of meta-gaming. (Sounds perfectly reasonable for one character to see another hesitate and, from an 'in-universe' perspective, shout "Get that goblin! You flank left!" before charging forward himself).
$endgroup$
– PJRZ
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I am trying to stop full conversations about what to do next in combat. In previous games I have run, the players spend quite a bit of time conversing about what to do next and talking about scenarios what could happen until eventually, they find the highest combination of skill they can put together. The example maybe wasn't the best. I was just trying to highlight that during combat there will be teaching of new players that could evolve into meta-gaming. I am hoping that by mixing up initiative, they can still talk about it, without having a sure plan that will 100% after the conversation
$endgroup$
– SaggingRufus
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Are you asking if people have used Speed Factor variant and what they're thoughts are on it? Or are you asking something else?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
9 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
This may be an X-Y Problem. Why don't you describe the concern you've got and ask for solutions?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
9 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Could you clarify what kind of actions you consider "meta-gaming about initiative"? I understand what you're proposing, but I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to stop.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Could you clarify what kind of actions you consider "meta-gaming about initiative"? I understand what you're proposing, but I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to stop.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
9 hours ago
6
6
$begingroup$
I'm not entirely convinced your current example is really an example of meta-gaming. (Sounds perfectly reasonable for one character to see another hesitate and, from an 'in-universe' perspective, shout "Get that goblin! You flank left!" before charging forward himself).
$endgroup$
– PJRZ
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm not entirely convinced your current example is really an example of meta-gaming. (Sounds perfectly reasonable for one character to see another hesitate and, from an 'in-universe' perspective, shout "Get that goblin! You flank left!" before charging forward himself).
$endgroup$
– PJRZ
9 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I am trying to stop full conversations about what to do next in combat. In previous games I have run, the players spend quite a bit of time conversing about what to do next and talking about scenarios what could happen until eventually, they find the highest combination of skill they can put together. The example maybe wasn't the best. I was just trying to highlight that during combat there will be teaching of new players that could evolve into meta-gaming. I am hoping that by mixing up initiative, they can still talk about it, without having a sure plan that will 100% after the conversation
$endgroup$
– SaggingRufus
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
I am trying to stop full conversations about what to do next in combat. In previous games I have run, the players spend quite a bit of time conversing about what to do next and talking about scenarios what could happen until eventually, they find the highest combination of skill they can put together. The example maybe wasn't the best. I was just trying to highlight that during combat there will be teaching of new players that could evolve into meta-gaming. I am hoping that by mixing up initiative, they can still talk about it, without having a sure plan that will 100% after the conversation
$endgroup$
– SaggingRufus
9 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Are you asking if people have used Speed Factor variant and what they're thoughts are on it? Or are you asking something else?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Are you asking if people have used Speed Factor variant and what they're thoughts are on it? Or are you asking something else?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
9 hours ago
4
4
$begingroup$
This may be an X-Y Problem. Why don't you describe the concern you've got and ask for solutions?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
This may be an X-Y Problem. Why don't you describe the concern you've got and ask for solutions?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
9 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Your problem as described doesn't sound like meta-gaming. It sounds like making tactics, and working together. You should encourage this! If your team can act faster than the goblin, it makes perfect sense to take it out before it can take an action.
From your comment:
I am trying to stop full conversations about what to do next in combat
To me it sounds like you feel your players are spending too much time planning out every single decision in combat, which to be fair can definitely eliminate any sense of dramatic tension.
If you want to up the pace of combat, you can put them on a time limit. Get a timer, an hourglass or something similar and tell your players they have until the sand empties to make your move. 60 seconds is usually plenty of time to make a decision, and once your players get used to it they probably won't even need the timer any more. The problem is that this might put undue pressure on a newer player, since you did mention you have some in your group.
While speed factor is certainly an option, in my experience re-rolling initiative is tedious, and can drag down the pace of the game even more, especially with new players. As pointed out in the comments, messing with initiative order can have other undesired effects. Monsters or players can effectively get two turns in a row, which throws off the balance of a lot of things, such as "until start of your next turn" abilities. Not to mention, re-tracking initiative every round puts even more work on your plate as DM. It also doesn't really solve the root problem of players over-analyzing combat; it just makes things more unpredictable.
As always, talk with your players before you change anything. Make sure everyone is on the same page about what you all want out of the game. If everyone is enjoying the way things are, there may not be a problem and trying to force them to change their ways could cause them to resent you.
Another option is to just up the tactics of your monsters! Make them flank, co-ordinate, ambush, lead players into traps, etc. Let the players feel like their planning pays off when they outsmart an equally intelligent enemy.
New contributor
Stalemate Of Tuning is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
May be worth mentioning that re-rolling initiative every round also throws a lot of randomness into abilities and spells that last "until the end of your next turn" (e.g. Monk's Stunning Fist). This adds a lot of unpredictability for players and the DM.
$endgroup$
– PJRZ
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Also worth noting that re-rolling initiative will inevitably lead to scenarios where one creature who may have been low on the first round is now high on the second round, effectively giving them two turns in a row, which can lead to some significant imbalance: A > B | B > A
$endgroup$
– Mwr247
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
re-rolling does not prevent tactical planning, but slows turns down
$endgroup$
– András
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Good points! I added them to the answer.
$endgroup$
– Stalemate Of Tuning
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Anecdotally, I've really enjoyed the time limit approach. I've never seen a hard limit be used (like an hourglass), but as a player, if our party deliberates well beyond what would be reasonable, my DMs have occasionally said "while your party's discussing strategy, the goblin [takes a turn]", or even "upon hearing you say you'll flank the goblin, he takes a 5 foot step backwards." (assuming he can understand you). We assume what's said IRL is said in-game (albeit with lots of latitude) so the DM deciding we've spent our 6 seconds planning never really feels unfair, just a good reminder.
$endgroup$
– Lord Farquaad
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What you describe is not metagaming
Relevantly, metagaming is "is any approach to a game that transcends or operates outside of the prescribed rules of the game" - there are other definitions that aren't relevant here.
There are the rules of the game. Therefore, it can't be metagaming.
The word that you need to use for this is tactics. Personally, I don't think its a good idea to try and eliminate tactics for the tactical part of the game but that's up to you.
Has anyone else tried this?
Yes. Me. A long time ago.
Rolling initiative each round and declaring actions in advance was the original way that D&D0, D&D Basic and AD&D did this although there was a single die roll for each 'side' not individual initiative.
Did it work? Sure, however, D&D abandoned it (which might tell you something) and my table abandoned the declaration element long before D&D did (which also might tell you something).
The Issues
It's slow. The most time-consuming part of combat with little or no payback is rolling initiative. If you are going to do this, I strongly suggest that you drop individual initiative and roll once per side - I believe the DMG has an option for this but I'm too lazy to look.
It's possible to cheat. Now I know you are scrupulously honest and would never consciously use your knowledge of the PC's stated actions to inform the monster's actions. However, knowing what they are will unconsciously influence you - because you're human. Notwithstanding, when the monster does something of nerfing the PCs, your players will suspect that you cheated whether such suspicion is justified or not. You can overcome this by having everyone write down their actions but that makes a slow system even slower.
It won't do what you want. All you are doing is changing the tactical situation which means your players will develop different tactics to cope. For example, if your enemy can move out of reach of your melee attack expect the players to eschew them for ranged attacks. More specifically, you are making the tactical situation more complex; the natural reaction of your players will be to spend more time considering their tactics, not less time.
Its less realistic. Yes, I said less. Small unit combat teams coordinate their actions if they want to survive. If it helps your verisimilitude, don't think of the tactical discussions as happening at the moment; think of them as discussions, training and practice that the party has gone through many, many times so that these are actually near instinctive responses to the tactical situation that presents itself.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Could one overcome the slowdown from writing down actions by having a card in front of each player with actions printed on it, along with a token that can be placed on an action and a movable screen that would shield that card from others' view? Everybody could simultaneously moves the token to the desired action and moves their hands away, and once everyone had done that, everyone could lift the screen to show their choice.
$endgroup$
– supercat
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@supercat and how do you deal with movement?
$endgroup$
– Dale M
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
One provides certain options on the card, and asks the players to describe their actions in more detail if the card isn't specific enough to fully describe what they're doing. Not a perfect approach, but it should slow the game down much less than writing everything down.
$endgroup$
– supercat
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f141896%2fwill-rerolling-initiative-each-round-stop-meta-gaming-about-initiative%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Your problem as described doesn't sound like meta-gaming. It sounds like making tactics, and working together. You should encourage this! If your team can act faster than the goblin, it makes perfect sense to take it out before it can take an action.
From your comment:
I am trying to stop full conversations about what to do next in combat
To me it sounds like you feel your players are spending too much time planning out every single decision in combat, which to be fair can definitely eliminate any sense of dramatic tension.
If you want to up the pace of combat, you can put them on a time limit. Get a timer, an hourglass or something similar and tell your players they have until the sand empties to make your move. 60 seconds is usually plenty of time to make a decision, and once your players get used to it they probably won't even need the timer any more. The problem is that this might put undue pressure on a newer player, since you did mention you have some in your group.
While speed factor is certainly an option, in my experience re-rolling initiative is tedious, and can drag down the pace of the game even more, especially with new players. As pointed out in the comments, messing with initiative order can have other undesired effects. Monsters or players can effectively get two turns in a row, which throws off the balance of a lot of things, such as "until start of your next turn" abilities. Not to mention, re-tracking initiative every round puts even more work on your plate as DM. It also doesn't really solve the root problem of players over-analyzing combat; it just makes things more unpredictable.
As always, talk with your players before you change anything. Make sure everyone is on the same page about what you all want out of the game. If everyone is enjoying the way things are, there may not be a problem and trying to force them to change their ways could cause them to resent you.
Another option is to just up the tactics of your monsters! Make them flank, co-ordinate, ambush, lead players into traps, etc. Let the players feel like their planning pays off when they outsmart an equally intelligent enemy.
New contributor
Stalemate Of Tuning is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
May be worth mentioning that re-rolling initiative every round also throws a lot of randomness into abilities and spells that last "until the end of your next turn" (e.g. Monk's Stunning Fist). This adds a lot of unpredictability for players and the DM.
$endgroup$
– PJRZ
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Also worth noting that re-rolling initiative will inevitably lead to scenarios where one creature who may have been low on the first round is now high on the second round, effectively giving them two turns in a row, which can lead to some significant imbalance: A > B | B > A
$endgroup$
– Mwr247
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
re-rolling does not prevent tactical planning, but slows turns down
$endgroup$
– András
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Good points! I added them to the answer.
$endgroup$
– Stalemate Of Tuning
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Anecdotally, I've really enjoyed the time limit approach. I've never seen a hard limit be used (like an hourglass), but as a player, if our party deliberates well beyond what would be reasonable, my DMs have occasionally said "while your party's discussing strategy, the goblin [takes a turn]", or even "upon hearing you say you'll flank the goblin, he takes a 5 foot step backwards." (assuming he can understand you). We assume what's said IRL is said in-game (albeit with lots of latitude) so the DM deciding we've spent our 6 seconds planning never really feels unfair, just a good reminder.
$endgroup$
– Lord Farquaad
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your problem as described doesn't sound like meta-gaming. It sounds like making tactics, and working together. You should encourage this! If your team can act faster than the goblin, it makes perfect sense to take it out before it can take an action.
From your comment:
I am trying to stop full conversations about what to do next in combat
To me it sounds like you feel your players are spending too much time planning out every single decision in combat, which to be fair can definitely eliminate any sense of dramatic tension.
If you want to up the pace of combat, you can put them on a time limit. Get a timer, an hourglass or something similar and tell your players they have until the sand empties to make your move. 60 seconds is usually plenty of time to make a decision, and once your players get used to it they probably won't even need the timer any more. The problem is that this might put undue pressure on a newer player, since you did mention you have some in your group.
While speed factor is certainly an option, in my experience re-rolling initiative is tedious, and can drag down the pace of the game even more, especially with new players. As pointed out in the comments, messing with initiative order can have other undesired effects. Monsters or players can effectively get two turns in a row, which throws off the balance of a lot of things, such as "until start of your next turn" abilities. Not to mention, re-tracking initiative every round puts even more work on your plate as DM. It also doesn't really solve the root problem of players over-analyzing combat; it just makes things more unpredictable.
As always, talk with your players before you change anything. Make sure everyone is on the same page about what you all want out of the game. If everyone is enjoying the way things are, there may not be a problem and trying to force them to change their ways could cause them to resent you.
Another option is to just up the tactics of your monsters! Make them flank, co-ordinate, ambush, lead players into traps, etc. Let the players feel like their planning pays off when they outsmart an equally intelligent enemy.
New contributor
Stalemate Of Tuning is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
May be worth mentioning that re-rolling initiative every round also throws a lot of randomness into abilities and spells that last "until the end of your next turn" (e.g. Monk's Stunning Fist). This adds a lot of unpredictability for players and the DM.
$endgroup$
– PJRZ
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Also worth noting that re-rolling initiative will inevitably lead to scenarios where one creature who may have been low on the first round is now high on the second round, effectively giving them two turns in a row, which can lead to some significant imbalance: A > B | B > A
$endgroup$
– Mwr247
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
re-rolling does not prevent tactical planning, but slows turns down
$endgroup$
– András
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Good points! I added them to the answer.
$endgroup$
– Stalemate Of Tuning
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Anecdotally, I've really enjoyed the time limit approach. I've never seen a hard limit be used (like an hourglass), but as a player, if our party deliberates well beyond what would be reasonable, my DMs have occasionally said "while your party's discussing strategy, the goblin [takes a turn]", or even "upon hearing you say you'll flank the goblin, he takes a 5 foot step backwards." (assuming he can understand you). We assume what's said IRL is said in-game (albeit with lots of latitude) so the DM deciding we've spent our 6 seconds planning never really feels unfair, just a good reminder.
$endgroup$
– Lord Farquaad
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your problem as described doesn't sound like meta-gaming. It sounds like making tactics, and working together. You should encourage this! If your team can act faster than the goblin, it makes perfect sense to take it out before it can take an action.
From your comment:
I am trying to stop full conversations about what to do next in combat
To me it sounds like you feel your players are spending too much time planning out every single decision in combat, which to be fair can definitely eliminate any sense of dramatic tension.
If you want to up the pace of combat, you can put them on a time limit. Get a timer, an hourglass or something similar and tell your players they have until the sand empties to make your move. 60 seconds is usually plenty of time to make a decision, and once your players get used to it they probably won't even need the timer any more. The problem is that this might put undue pressure on a newer player, since you did mention you have some in your group.
While speed factor is certainly an option, in my experience re-rolling initiative is tedious, and can drag down the pace of the game even more, especially with new players. As pointed out in the comments, messing with initiative order can have other undesired effects. Monsters or players can effectively get two turns in a row, which throws off the balance of a lot of things, such as "until start of your next turn" abilities. Not to mention, re-tracking initiative every round puts even more work on your plate as DM. It also doesn't really solve the root problem of players over-analyzing combat; it just makes things more unpredictable.
As always, talk with your players before you change anything. Make sure everyone is on the same page about what you all want out of the game. If everyone is enjoying the way things are, there may not be a problem and trying to force them to change their ways could cause them to resent you.
Another option is to just up the tactics of your monsters! Make them flank, co-ordinate, ambush, lead players into traps, etc. Let the players feel like their planning pays off when they outsmart an equally intelligent enemy.
New contributor
Stalemate Of Tuning is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
Your problem as described doesn't sound like meta-gaming. It sounds like making tactics, and working together. You should encourage this! If your team can act faster than the goblin, it makes perfect sense to take it out before it can take an action.
From your comment:
I am trying to stop full conversations about what to do next in combat
To me it sounds like you feel your players are spending too much time planning out every single decision in combat, which to be fair can definitely eliminate any sense of dramatic tension.
If you want to up the pace of combat, you can put them on a time limit. Get a timer, an hourglass or something similar and tell your players they have until the sand empties to make your move. 60 seconds is usually plenty of time to make a decision, and once your players get used to it they probably won't even need the timer any more. The problem is that this might put undue pressure on a newer player, since you did mention you have some in your group.
While speed factor is certainly an option, in my experience re-rolling initiative is tedious, and can drag down the pace of the game even more, especially with new players. As pointed out in the comments, messing with initiative order can have other undesired effects. Monsters or players can effectively get two turns in a row, which throws off the balance of a lot of things, such as "until start of your next turn" abilities. Not to mention, re-tracking initiative every round puts even more work on your plate as DM. It also doesn't really solve the root problem of players over-analyzing combat; it just makes things more unpredictable.
As always, talk with your players before you change anything. Make sure everyone is on the same page about what you all want out of the game. If everyone is enjoying the way things are, there may not be a problem and trying to force them to change their ways could cause them to resent you.
Another option is to just up the tactics of your monsters! Make them flank, co-ordinate, ambush, lead players into traps, etc. Let the players feel like their planning pays off when they outsmart an equally intelligent enemy.
New contributor
Stalemate Of Tuning is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 6 hours ago
New contributor
Stalemate Of Tuning is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 9 hours ago
Stalemate Of TuningStalemate Of Tuning
31616
31616
New contributor
Stalemate Of Tuning is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Stalemate Of Tuning is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Stalemate Of Tuning is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
$begingroup$
May be worth mentioning that re-rolling initiative every round also throws a lot of randomness into abilities and spells that last "until the end of your next turn" (e.g. Monk's Stunning Fist). This adds a lot of unpredictability for players and the DM.
$endgroup$
– PJRZ
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Also worth noting that re-rolling initiative will inevitably lead to scenarios where one creature who may have been low on the first round is now high on the second round, effectively giving them two turns in a row, which can lead to some significant imbalance: A > B | B > A
$endgroup$
– Mwr247
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
re-rolling does not prevent tactical planning, but slows turns down
$endgroup$
– András
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Good points! I added them to the answer.
$endgroup$
– Stalemate Of Tuning
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Anecdotally, I've really enjoyed the time limit approach. I've never seen a hard limit be used (like an hourglass), but as a player, if our party deliberates well beyond what would be reasonable, my DMs have occasionally said "while your party's discussing strategy, the goblin [takes a turn]", or even "upon hearing you say you'll flank the goblin, he takes a 5 foot step backwards." (assuming he can understand you). We assume what's said IRL is said in-game (albeit with lots of latitude) so the DM deciding we've spent our 6 seconds planning never really feels unfair, just a good reminder.
$endgroup$
– Lord Farquaad
5 hours ago
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
May be worth mentioning that re-rolling initiative every round also throws a lot of randomness into abilities and spells that last "until the end of your next turn" (e.g. Monk's Stunning Fist). This adds a lot of unpredictability for players and the DM.
$endgroup$
– PJRZ
9 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Also worth noting that re-rolling initiative will inevitably lead to scenarios where one creature who may have been low on the first round is now high on the second round, effectively giving them two turns in a row, which can lead to some significant imbalance: A > B | B > A
$endgroup$
– Mwr247
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
re-rolling does not prevent tactical planning, but slows turns down
$endgroup$
– András
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Good points! I added them to the answer.
$endgroup$
– Stalemate Of Tuning
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Anecdotally, I've really enjoyed the time limit approach. I've never seen a hard limit be used (like an hourglass), but as a player, if our party deliberates well beyond what would be reasonable, my DMs have occasionally said "while your party's discussing strategy, the goblin [takes a turn]", or even "upon hearing you say you'll flank the goblin, he takes a 5 foot step backwards." (assuming he can understand you). We assume what's said IRL is said in-game (albeit with lots of latitude) so the DM deciding we've spent our 6 seconds planning never really feels unfair, just a good reminder.
$endgroup$
– Lord Farquaad
5 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
May be worth mentioning that re-rolling initiative every round also throws a lot of randomness into abilities and spells that last "until the end of your next turn" (e.g. Monk's Stunning Fist). This adds a lot of unpredictability for players and the DM.
$endgroup$
– PJRZ
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
May be worth mentioning that re-rolling initiative every round also throws a lot of randomness into abilities and spells that last "until the end of your next turn" (e.g. Monk's Stunning Fist). This adds a lot of unpredictability for players and the DM.
$endgroup$
– PJRZ
9 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Also worth noting that re-rolling initiative will inevitably lead to scenarios where one creature who may have been low on the first round is now high on the second round, effectively giving them two turns in a row, which can lead to some significant imbalance: A > B | B > A
$endgroup$
– Mwr247
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Also worth noting that re-rolling initiative will inevitably lead to scenarios where one creature who may have been low on the first round is now high on the second round, effectively giving them two turns in a row, which can lead to some significant imbalance: A > B | B > A
$endgroup$
– Mwr247
8 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
re-rolling does not prevent tactical planning, but slows turns down
$endgroup$
– András
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
re-rolling does not prevent tactical planning, but slows turns down
$endgroup$
– András
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Good points! I added them to the answer.
$endgroup$
– Stalemate Of Tuning
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Good points! I added them to the answer.
$endgroup$
– Stalemate Of Tuning
6 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Anecdotally, I've really enjoyed the time limit approach. I've never seen a hard limit be used (like an hourglass), but as a player, if our party deliberates well beyond what would be reasonable, my DMs have occasionally said "while your party's discussing strategy, the goblin [takes a turn]", or even "upon hearing you say you'll flank the goblin, he takes a 5 foot step backwards." (assuming he can understand you). We assume what's said IRL is said in-game (albeit with lots of latitude) so the DM deciding we've spent our 6 seconds planning never really feels unfair, just a good reminder.
$endgroup$
– Lord Farquaad
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Anecdotally, I've really enjoyed the time limit approach. I've never seen a hard limit be used (like an hourglass), but as a player, if our party deliberates well beyond what would be reasonable, my DMs have occasionally said "while your party's discussing strategy, the goblin [takes a turn]", or even "upon hearing you say you'll flank the goblin, he takes a 5 foot step backwards." (assuming he can understand you). We assume what's said IRL is said in-game (albeit with lots of latitude) so the DM deciding we've spent our 6 seconds planning never really feels unfair, just a good reminder.
$endgroup$
– Lord Farquaad
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What you describe is not metagaming
Relevantly, metagaming is "is any approach to a game that transcends or operates outside of the prescribed rules of the game" - there are other definitions that aren't relevant here.
There are the rules of the game. Therefore, it can't be metagaming.
The word that you need to use for this is tactics. Personally, I don't think its a good idea to try and eliminate tactics for the tactical part of the game but that's up to you.
Has anyone else tried this?
Yes. Me. A long time ago.
Rolling initiative each round and declaring actions in advance was the original way that D&D0, D&D Basic and AD&D did this although there was a single die roll for each 'side' not individual initiative.
Did it work? Sure, however, D&D abandoned it (which might tell you something) and my table abandoned the declaration element long before D&D did (which also might tell you something).
The Issues
It's slow. The most time-consuming part of combat with little or no payback is rolling initiative. If you are going to do this, I strongly suggest that you drop individual initiative and roll once per side - I believe the DMG has an option for this but I'm too lazy to look.
It's possible to cheat. Now I know you are scrupulously honest and would never consciously use your knowledge of the PC's stated actions to inform the monster's actions. However, knowing what they are will unconsciously influence you - because you're human. Notwithstanding, when the monster does something of nerfing the PCs, your players will suspect that you cheated whether such suspicion is justified or not. You can overcome this by having everyone write down their actions but that makes a slow system even slower.
It won't do what you want. All you are doing is changing the tactical situation which means your players will develop different tactics to cope. For example, if your enemy can move out of reach of your melee attack expect the players to eschew them for ranged attacks. More specifically, you are making the tactical situation more complex; the natural reaction of your players will be to spend more time considering their tactics, not less time.
Its less realistic. Yes, I said less. Small unit combat teams coordinate their actions if they want to survive. If it helps your verisimilitude, don't think of the tactical discussions as happening at the moment; think of them as discussions, training and practice that the party has gone through many, many times so that these are actually near instinctive responses to the tactical situation that presents itself.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Could one overcome the slowdown from writing down actions by having a card in front of each player with actions printed on it, along with a token that can be placed on an action and a movable screen that would shield that card from others' view? Everybody could simultaneously moves the token to the desired action and moves their hands away, and once everyone had done that, everyone could lift the screen to show their choice.
$endgroup$
– supercat
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@supercat and how do you deal with movement?
$endgroup$
– Dale M
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
One provides certain options on the card, and asks the players to describe their actions in more detail if the card isn't specific enough to fully describe what they're doing. Not a perfect approach, but it should slow the game down much less than writing everything down.
$endgroup$
– supercat
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What you describe is not metagaming
Relevantly, metagaming is "is any approach to a game that transcends or operates outside of the prescribed rules of the game" - there are other definitions that aren't relevant here.
There are the rules of the game. Therefore, it can't be metagaming.
The word that you need to use for this is tactics. Personally, I don't think its a good idea to try and eliminate tactics for the tactical part of the game but that's up to you.
Has anyone else tried this?
Yes. Me. A long time ago.
Rolling initiative each round and declaring actions in advance was the original way that D&D0, D&D Basic and AD&D did this although there was a single die roll for each 'side' not individual initiative.
Did it work? Sure, however, D&D abandoned it (which might tell you something) and my table abandoned the declaration element long before D&D did (which also might tell you something).
The Issues
It's slow. The most time-consuming part of combat with little or no payback is rolling initiative. If you are going to do this, I strongly suggest that you drop individual initiative and roll once per side - I believe the DMG has an option for this but I'm too lazy to look.
It's possible to cheat. Now I know you are scrupulously honest and would never consciously use your knowledge of the PC's stated actions to inform the monster's actions. However, knowing what they are will unconsciously influence you - because you're human. Notwithstanding, when the monster does something of nerfing the PCs, your players will suspect that you cheated whether such suspicion is justified or not. You can overcome this by having everyone write down their actions but that makes a slow system even slower.
It won't do what you want. All you are doing is changing the tactical situation which means your players will develop different tactics to cope. For example, if your enemy can move out of reach of your melee attack expect the players to eschew them for ranged attacks. More specifically, you are making the tactical situation more complex; the natural reaction of your players will be to spend more time considering their tactics, not less time.
Its less realistic. Yes, I said less. Small unit combat teams coordinate their actions if they want to survive. If it helps your verisimilitude, don't think of the tactical discussions as happening at the moment; think of them as discussions, training and practice that the party has gone through many, many times so that these are actually near instinctive responses to the tactical situation that presents itself.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Could one overcome the slowdown from writing down actions by having a card in front of each player with actions printed on it, along with a token that can be placed on an action and a movable screen that would shield that card from others' view? Everybody could simultaneously moves the token to the desired action and moves their hands away, and once everyone had done that, everyone could lift the screen to show their choice.
$endgroup$
– supercat
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@supercat and how do you deal with movement?
$endgroup$
– Dale M
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
One provides certain options on the card, and asks the players to describe their actions in more detail if the card isn't specific enough to fully describe what they're doing. Not a perfect approach, but it should slow the game down much less than writing everything down.
$endgroup$
– supercat
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What you describe is not metagaming
Relevantly, metagaming is "is any approach to a game that transcends or operates outside of the prescribed rules of the game" - there are other definitions that aren't relevant here.
There are the rules of the game. Therefore, it can't be metagaming.
The word that you need to use for this is tactics. Personally, I don't think its a good idea to try and eliminate tactics for the tactical part of the game but that's up to you.
Has anyone else tried this?
Yes. Me. A long time ago.
Rolling initiative each round and declaring actions in advance was the original way that D&D0, D&D Basic and AD&D did this although there was a single die roll for each 'side' not individual initiative.
Did it work? Sure, however, D&D abandoned it (which might tell you something) and my table abandoned the declaration element long before D&D did (which also might tell you something).
The Issues
It's slow. The most time-consuming part of combat with little or no payback is rolling initiative. If you are going to do this, I strongly suggest that you drop individual initiative and roll once per side - I believe the DMG has an option for this but I'm too lazy to look.
It's possible to cheat. Now I know you are scrupulously honest and would never consciously use your knowledge of the PC's stated actions to inform the monster's actions. However, knowing what they are will unconsciously influence you - because you're human. Notwithstanding, when the monster does something of nerfing the PCs, your players will suspect that you cheated whether such suspicion is justified or not. You can overcome this by having everyone write down their actions but that makes a slow system even slower.
It won't do what you want. All you are doing is changing the tactical situation which means your players will develop different tactics to cope. For example, if your enemy can move out of reach of your melee attack expect the players to eschew them for ranged attacks. More specifically, you are making the tactical situation more complex; the natural reaction of your players will be to spend more time considering their tactics, not less time.
Its less realistic. Yes, I said less. Small unit combat teams coordinate their actions if they want to survive. If it helps your verisimilitude, don't think of the tactical discussions as happening at the moment; think of them as discussions, training and practice that the party has gone through many, many times so that these are actually near instinctive responses to the tactical situation that presents itself.
$endgroup$
What you describe is not metagaming
Relevantly, metagaming is "is any approach to a game that transcends or operates outside of the prescribed rules of the game" - there are other definitions that aren't relevant here.
There are the rules of the game. Therefore, it can't be metagaming.
The word that you need to use for this is tactics. Personally, I don't think its a good idea to try and eliminate tactics for the tactical part of the game but that's up to you.
Has anyone else tried this?
Yes. Me. A long time ago.
Rolling initiative each round and declaring actions in advance was the original way that D&D0, D&D Basic and AD&D did this although there was a single die roll for each 'side' not individual initiative.
Did it work? Sure, however, D&D abandoned it (which might tell you something) and my table abandoned the declaration element long before D&D did (which also might tell you something).
The Issues
It's slow. The most time-consuming part of combat with little or no payback is rolling initiative. If you are going to do this, I strongly suggest that you drop individual initiative and roll once per side - I believe the DMG has an option for this but I'm too lazy to look.
It's possible to cheat. Now I know you are scrupulously honest and would never consciously use your knowledge of the PC's stated actions to inform the monster's actions. However, knowing what they are will unconsciously influence you - because you're human. Notwithstanding, when the monster does something of nerfing the PCs, your players will suspect that you cheated whether such suspicion is justified or not. You can overcome this by having everyone write down their actions but that makes a slow system even slower.
It won't do what you want. All you are doing is changing the tactical situation which means your players will develop different tactics to cope. For example, if your enemy can move out of reach of your melee attack expect the players to eschew them for ranged attacks. More specifically, you are making the tactical situation more complex; the natural reaction of your players will be to spend more time considering their tactics, not less time.
Its less realistic. Yes, I said less. Small unit combat teams coordinate their actions if they want to survive. If it helps your verisimilitude, don't think of the tactical discussions as happening at the moment; think of them as discussions, training and practice that the party has gone through many, many times so that these are actually near instinctive responses to the tactical situation that presents itself.
answered 2 hours ago
Dale MDale M
107k21276475
107k21276475
$begingroup$
Could one overcome the slowdown from writing down actions by having a card in front of each player with actions printed on it, along with a token that can be placed on an action and a movable screen that would shield that card from others' view? Everybody could simultaneously moves the token to the desired action and moves their hands away, and once everyone had done that, everyone could lift the screen to show their choice.
$endgroup$
– supercat
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@supercat and how do you deal with movement?
$endgroup$
– Dale M
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
One provides certain options on the card, and asks the players to describe their actions in more detail if the card isn't specific enough to fully describe what they're doing. Not a perfect approach, but it should slow the game down much less than writing everything down.
$endgroup$
– supercat
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Could one overcome the slowdown from writing down actions by having a card in front of each player with actions printed on it, along with a token that can be placed on an action and a movable screen that would shield that card from others' view? Everybody could simultaneously moves the token to the desired action and moves their hands away, and once everyone had done that, everyone could lift the screen to show their choice.
$endgroup$
– supercat
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@supercat and how do you deal with movement?
$endgroup$
– Dale M
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
One provides certain options on the card, and asks the players to describe their actions in more detail if the card isn't specific enough to fully describe what they're doing. Not a perfect approach, but it should slow the game down much less than writing everything down.
$endgroup$
– supercat
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Could one overcome the slowdown from writing down actions by having a card in front of each player with actions printed on it, along with a token that can be placed on an action and a movable screen that would shield that card from others' view? Everybody could simultaneously moves the token to the desired action and moves their hands away, and once everyone had done that, everyone could lift the screen to show their choice.
$endgroup$
– supercat
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Could one overcome the slowdown from writing down actions by having a card in front of each player with actions printed on it, along with a token that can be placed on an action and a movable screen that would shield that card from others' view? Everybody could simultaneously moves the token to the desired action and moves their hands away, and once everyone had done that, everyone could lift the screen to show their choice.
$endgroup$
– supercat
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@supercat and how do you deal with movement?
$endgroup$
– Dale M
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@supercat and how do you deal with movement?
$endgroup$
– Dale M
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
One provides certain options on the card, and asks the players to describe their actions in more detail if the card isn't specific enough to fully describe what they're doing. Not a perfect approach, but it should slow the game down much less than writing everything down.
$endgroup$
– supercat
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
One provides certain options on the card, and asks the players to describe their actions in more detail if the card isn't specific enough to fully describe what they're doing. Not a perfect approach, but it should slow the game down much less than writing everything down.
$endgroup$
– supercat
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f141896%2fwill-rerolling-initiative-each-round-stop-meta-gaming-about-initiative%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
Could you clarify what kind of actions you consider "meta-gaming about initiative"? I understand what you're proposing, but I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to stop.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
9 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
I'm not entirely convinced your current example is really an example of meta-gaming. (Sounds perfectly reasonable for one character to see another hesitate and, from an 'in-universe' perspective, shout "Get that goblin! You flank left!" before charging forward himself).
$endgroup$
– PJRZ
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I am trying to stop full conversations about what to do next in combat. In previous games I have run, the players spend quite a bit of time conversing about what to do next and talking about scenarios what could happen until eventually, they find the highest combination of skill they can put together. The example maybe wasn't the best. I was just trying to highlight that during combat there will be teaching of new players that could evolve into meta-gaming. I am hoping that by mixing up initiative, they can still talk about it, without having a sure plan that will 100% after the conversation
$endgroup$
– SaggingRufus
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Are you asking if people have used Speed Factor variant and what they're thoughts are on it? Or are you asking something else?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
9 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
This may be an X-Y Problem. Why don't you describe the concern you've got and ask for solutions?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
9 hours ago