How to do Speech in TTRPGs (without dice!)

I don't like rolling for speech. This post explains why, how to do the alternative, and why you might like the alternative better than rolling for speech too! There are different ways to play a TTRPG. One approach is called player skill over character skill (or player-skill-forward) where the players rely on their own intelligence, wisdom, charisma, luck, skills, creativity, etc., rather than use the characters abilities and skills and etc. I personally believe that the opposite approach of character skill over player skill is for video games, and I personally do not want it in my TTRPGs.

First, I'm going to start with some arguments, then I'm going to explain some general concepts, then I'm going to instruct you on how to talk to people.

Why Player Skill Over Character Skill?

First, some arguments for why you would have the players rely on their own speech skills rather than rely on their character's speech skills and the games mechanics.

1. Personal preference. For you D&D 5e folks, this is supported by the 2014 5e DMG, page 236.

2. The game is about portraying a character. I don't want the game's rules or the designers ideas of game balance to tell me how to portray my character. It's my character, I can handle that. Outside of a computer game, a personality is not something that needs to be made into a statistic and then balanced against other abilities.

3. Incentive and disincentive. I want to engage with social interaction using my skill, and I don't want to be penalized for my character's poor skills. Similarly, I don't want players holding back on engagement with roleplay because they are relying on their characters high skill to do all the work. Players also tend to elect a single character as the face of the group and they all avoid participation.

4. Game mechanics and rules are not the medium of the game, conversation is. Mechanics and rules are for simulating what we cannot do at the table. In other words, we don't need to simulate conversation because we can actually have those. Excessive mechanics and rules make the game more complex without necessarily improving the game.

5. Disengaging from the emerging narrative to resolve something with dice and mechanics, and then re-engaging with narrative is immersion breaking and slows the pacing of the game. In other words, it's not fun. There's too much rolling dice in games. Every time you stop a conversation to roll a die, the story forgets what it was doing.

6. With skill / ability rolls, we tend to roll a die to resolve uncertainty (id est when the GM can't make a ruling to determine success or failure). The fact is that if the speech reasonably satisfies the NPCs needs and does not raise any objections, the speech should succeed and there should be no uncertainty. Adding dice to such rolls is arbitrary and the outcomes feel contrived. That's not fun to play or narratively satisfying. If the NPC already agrees with you, the dice don't get a vote.

7. If you're not good at speech, a TTRPG is an excellent situation for learning that skill! You can get practice here without real world consequences. It's an educational component of a TTRPG.

8. Demystification of charm. Charm is not how you talk to people; intelligence is. In GURPS for example, all speech skills are related to intelligence, not the personality. Why? First, communication is about ideas. You need some intelligence to communicate, and you need high intelligence to communicate complexity. Second, because what you communicate is the substance, and how you say it is the style. Substance beats style. If you have a crap idea but pretty words and charm, people are still going to reject the idea. For example, I went to the mall and someone tried to sell me a product that keeps the bottoms of my shoes white. I think my face said it all and the salesman shrank away in shame because deep down he knew he was selling a crap idea.

General Concepts

Here are general concepts for Speech and how to think about them from a player skill over character skill mindset. Think of this as the glossary but better. You're probably familiar with them some of the ideas. I think if you read this, you'll have a high-level overview of game concepts and practical application of them.

1. In-Character means speaking as if intending to portray your character. You can use your own voice and accent or a different one. Speak what the character says verbatim. Out-of-character means speaking as if not intending to portray the character. Alternatively, out-of-character is breaking character. You may either speak in-character, or you may describe out-of-character what your character says and how, including paraphrasing what they say, as long as the description is vivid enough for the players to continue the scene or the GM to resolve the scene. Alternating in-character and out-of-character portrayal is fine.

2. Your character concept need not define what kind of speaker your character is, but if you establish or play your character as a good speaker or a poor speaker, be consistent! It is a bad roleplaying to flip flop from a good speaker to a bad speaker, and it is metagaming to flip flop from a bad speaker to a good speaker in an instance when you really need to be successful.

3. Consider your reputation. Reputation is the part of your character sheet you don't get to write. You may have no reputation but can earn one through your interactions with people and your other deeds. If you're unknown but your reputation is known, this may be a benefit or a detriment. A poor reputation can sour any interaction even by someone amenable with something good to offer. Also consider that you may have separate reputations based on place or social group.

4. Objections stop people from doing what you want no matter how good a talker you are. Sometimes, people have objections that come from deeply held principles, or sometimes they just don't like you. Sometimes they don't voice these objections either. Consider a hypothetical religious shop owner who doesn't want to do business with customers of other religions. Consider a nationalist who won't betray their homeland for anything, or a man who would rather take a beating and die than earn a reputation as a coward. Consider a man might never endanger his family even if it means betraying his own values and beliefs. Some objections aren't puzzles; they're walls.

5. Charm isn't magic. Charm is often depicted in fiction as a character smiling and winking and getting what they ask for, and everyone in a room likes them. In reality, people have a general attitude and affinity for certain kinds of people or behavior which doesn't radically change because someone is charming.

6. Persuasiveness can come from good reasoning and logical argument rather than charm or charismatic speech, such as convincing someone that an idea might work. Note that people are complex, and you can't reasonably expect to change people's minds with every interaction.

7. Good persuasion can be knowing how to ask for something, but not always. Persuasion is more often like diplomacy, negotiation, or a trade deal. It's about having something of value to offer someone in exchange for something you want from them. Find what a person needs and try to satisfy it in a way that they will want to do business with you again. Regret and buyer's remorse will sour future interaction.

8. Intimidation is disrespectful. Non-player characters will have varying tolerance of disrespect, and many will remember it. Intimidation and disrespect negatively affect your reputation and become future objections.

9. Lying is generally strongly unwanted in a society. The key to a good lie is that it's plausible. If it's not plausible, you can make people suspicious of you. Also, a lie that isn't plausible isn't a lie, it's an insult (these become future objections and poor reputation). Just because you successfully convince someone that a lie is true doesn't mean your lie compels their thoughts or behavior; That would require additional persuasion or intimidation.

10. Social situations or context. If you're speaking to a king, expect to use proper courtesy and etiquette. If your manner of speaking does not suit the social situation, for example, speaking too formally at an informal situation, people might perceive this as lacking social tact. Some people might simply reject people from other social groups or classes, and there might not be much you can do about that. Altering your speech or code swapping, if caught, comes across as inauthentic and you may lose respect with certain people or groups.

11. Insight or Sensing Motivations is not a psychic power. One's ability to do this comes from experience with and knowledge of people or animals, and situational awareness. Sometimes it's a sense that something feels off that you can't explain. Pay attention to the GM's description of the NPC and their portrayal of them to spot clues or inconsistencies. If you the player get a bad feeling, only you can decide if your character would also get a bad feeling.

12. Players, rely on your own luck, intelligence, wisdom, perception, insight, charisma, etc., not just your character's. This is called player skill over character skill. If something feels wrong, you don't have to roll for it. If you have an idea about how to overcome an NPCs objection and make them happy, try it. Don't ask the GM "would my character think...". Judge for yourself, it's your character. If a thought occurs to you, why wouldn't it occur to your character?

13. Etiquette is a knowledge and understanding of how a social group interacts. It includes having an understanding of what words to use, when and how, of body language, of dress codes, of expected behaviors (e.g. manners, decorum). Etiquette can be a major culture, but is often more specific like criminal etiquette, scholar etiquette, business etiquette, religious etiquette, noble etiquette, warrior etiquette,  etc. Your etiquette is leaned through being a member of that social group, and so possessing that etiquette describes (implicitly) your history. Some social groups are clique-y or insular, and some social groups don't like other groups. This means your having or lacking of an etiquette, or your associating with people with a certain etiquette, can be an advantage or disadvantage sometimes.

How to Talk to People

1. Identify what people need.

2. Make an offer.

3. Ask for feedback to identify any objections and adjust your offer.

That's it. That's all there is to it. That's how to make a deal. That's how to threaten people. That's how to lie. That's how to ask a girl for her number (seriously).

It's important to know that if someone declines, there's a certain amount of persistence that's acceptable, then you should gracefully accept their decision. If you don't, you risk coming across as pushy and obnoxious, testing their patience, and burning their good will. You risk treating people like a mark to take advantage of rather than a person to form a functional, mutually beneficial relationship with.

Needs and objections can typically, but not always, be revealed by having a casual or friendly conversation with someone! There's no rolling. There's just keeping your mind in the scene, embodying your character, and asking open-ended questions. If a player makes an offer that is genuinely satisfying to the NPC, the offer is accepted. If there's any objections, the offer is refused unless the player can offer something that overcomes the objection. Sometimes, the NPC will tell you why the offer is not good enough and make a counteroffer. Sometimes, there's nothing you can do about an objection to your offer.

Does anyone watch Doctor Who? The Doctor is a remarkable speaker. He can walk into a room where he has no business being, act like he belongs there, tell everyone why they should listen to him, and then earn their trust or at least their begrudging obedience. If you pay attention to the writing of Doctor Who, this isn't bullsh!t. This is a smart character who happens to be charming. He asks people to make hard decisions, and he does it by explaining practically why they need to. He explains why the decision they make will help or hurt people. He appeals to people's sense of decency, duty, morality, faith, community, family. He asks people to be brave and virtuous and be the best person they can be because no one else will. This is not "I do a persuasion." *rolls dice* "33. What happens?" This is dramatic dialogue.

Conclusion

If you can speak, think, and negotiate at the table, you don't need mechanics to do it for you. Hopefully, if you use this in your game, it works. This might not be for everyone, but hopefully you can teach your players, and they can learn fast, and it'll be easy. Hopefully it will improve your game even if you go back to rolling for speech. Then again, there might be some people for whom I have spoiled speech checks forever and they'll never want to go back (I don't!). I have seen players get into characters and give really great speeches. When players start giving impassioned speech, that's the freeform nature of this approach working! One bad die roll and they may never put in the effort to do that ever again. So, if you don't use this idea in its entirety, use some of it.

If D&D Classes Made Sense - Managing Expectation

One complaint I have about modern D&D (5th ed) is the culture around this edition; The people who play this game think that it's fiction, therefore anything goes. It's the Smash Bros of TTRPGs. There's no cohesion, consistency, or curation. It feels like playing make believe with every toy in the toy box, even toys that don't go together. I don't like it. Some people don't care, and good for them. I mean that. I don't like it, and I recognize that my point of view might make me that picky kid who doesn't like it when their mashed potatoes touches their corn. I get it.

Here's my take on the D&D classes. It's going to sound like a guy on the internet telling you your fun is wrong, but that's not the intention! The intention is to share my perspective and find people who agree with it. Hypothetically, I could finally find the people I really want to game with. I don't count on changing people's minds, but maybe they could appreciate my perspective.

Artificer

I don't like crafting classes because if your character could make anything of market quality, why would you choose to crawl into holes and fight monsters for gold? The premise already doesn't make any sense, but that's not all! For purposes of game balance, there are very arbitrary crafting restrictions built into this class that make no sense in a believable make-believe setting. Those being that you can make only X number of items at a time, and if you want to make a new item, you have to break an old one. Yeah, OK. That doesn't sound conspicuously like a game-y design idea. If your character was asked "how come you can only make three magic items?" what answer does your character have? The answer describes the way that character class fits into the setting and the world. Seriously, how come you can only make three magic items? And do they only work for you or can you pass them out? Do their bonuses stack? Do their bonuses disappear if you die? How does that make sense? Seriously, it makes me ask too many questions.

And then there's the idea that you can craft things during a short or long rest (OK, so I have never read the rules for this class, but I think that's how it works). Listen, I've watched videos on the internet about blacksmithing. That is not light activity. It's labor. Also, imagine you're on the road and your friend pulls out a little baby anvil and starts hammering out a suit of armor while you're trying to sleep? There's no way you're going to be able to get a wink. It's a built-in absurdity of the class that no one thinks about until they start making jokes, and jokes lead to spoiling the tone of the game. I don't like it.

Finally, any crafting class needs to break the crafting rules of the game to be viable. The crafting rules of the D&D game are trying to describe a world where crafting is a time-consuming endeavor. If a standard craftsman in the setting wants to make a sword or anything valuable, it's going to take a week or longer. Based on the rules, it's going to take a blacksmith a year to make a suit of plate armor. That doesn't just describe the crafting rules, it describes the logic of the world. It might also be realistic which helps make the world intuitive, which is a benefit to your game and your fiction. Then the artificer can just beat one out during a rest. Sorry guys, that's immersion breaking. This class doesn't make sense because it forces us to make concessions to the logic of the setting to make the class work.

I will circle back around to the concept of crafting classes at the end.

Barbarian

The Romans used the word Barbarian to describe either a foreigner or someone who was non-Roman, and specifically a foreigner who is uncivilized. The Roman's didn't know everything about their non-Roman neighbors, and they didn't care. The word Barbarian could be used to describe many other cultures all at once. It didn't matter to the Roman. In other words, a barbarian is a person who comes from another culture that was assumed to be less culturally or technologically developed than Rome. In D&D, a barbarian is some kind of warrior that gets more powerful when they're angry. It's stupid, and it's stupid how we went from one thing to the other thing.

To me, barbarian is either a culture within the setting (so a background rather than a class), a character flavor, or a subclass of fighter. Maybe all three. I don't think we need it as a class.

I think raging is flavor, not an action. I think it's a good idea to look at other TTRPGs and see how they design something because the reality is every design is a solution to a problem or an answer to a question. Let's talk about GURPS for a second. GURPS is a game that tries to create rules that describe reality. This allows the system to be setting and genre neutral. In GURPS, anyone can make an All-Out Attack as an action. When you make an all-out attack, you choose either to hit harder or you make a multi-attack (with a penalty to accuracy?). Now, as a mechanical trade-off to making an all-out attack, you take a temporary penalty to your defenses. The logic here is that you are fully committing to an attack and so you don't focus on defense as much. High risk, high reward. It makes sense. I think this is how D&D rage should work, but in D&D, it's the opposite. I think D&D rage is stupid, but GURPS all-out attack is smart.

Bard

I really like the D&D bard, I really do, but I also think "magical musical talky-guy" is a really stupid concept for an adventuring class, and I think most D&D players who pick bard also use it as an excuse to make a joke character, and I think that sucks.

Have you ever wondered where the word bard comes from? A bard is a type of druid-in-training, not its own separate concept. Bard is an intermediate level that takes on the role of storyteller. See, Druidism is believed to be an oral tradition; that means they didn't write anything down! Instead, the druids memorized everything, and they passed knowledge down exclusively verbally. The druid's training involved a lot of developing a strong memory and memorizing a ton of stories. The bard was therefore the level for a druid-in-training that focused on the memory and memorization. Storytelling was their role as this allowed them to exercise all this memory training. I am of course talking completely out of my ass because everything we know about druids comes from secondary sources because the druids themselves didn't leave a record behind due to their oral tradition. I have no idea what Gary Gygax was thinking when he created the bard class. Can you imagine how D&D might be different if Gary had the internet when he created D&D?

Do you know what a skald is? It's a warrior poet. For clarification, the warrior poet was not warrior who was artsy. He was a proper warrior. His job on the side was to take the accomplishments of himself and his allies in battle and record them in the form of a song or poem so. That's it. The effect was that he could help with the prestige of his companions. You can't fear or admire someone if you've never heard about them. What better way to hear about someone than to hear a fantastic story or poem or song about their bravery and triumphs? The skald probably got a bigger share of the spoils for taking on this responsibility too. To clarify, the skald was not some goofy looking MFer in the back wearing pantaloons and a plumed hat, playing a lute in the middle of a skirmish and making allies slightly more effective one by one. That's goofy. It makes the fiction of the game hard to take seriously.

As an exercise, ask what if a wandering poet, traveling-musician or adventuring performer was its own social class or culture within the setting. In my eyes, you might be able to justify the D&D bard if you came up with something that makes sense. I'm imagining gypsies from Disney's Hunchback movie.

At the end of the day, if you want to be a musical or poetic character, you don't need a class to realize this concept. Anyone can be a musician or a poet. The game does not need to come up with rules for being artistic and balance this against other skills or powers.

Cleric

What does cleric mean? It means "of the clergy". Historically, the clergy is a social class. You know, social classes in a class system like peasanty, merchants, nobility, etc. In a society where religion is important, the clergy is the religious class. The priests are their own class distinct from peasants and nobility. So, in summary, a cleric describes anyone who is a part of organized religion. What place or role within organized religion? It depends on the religion. By some stretches, a cleric could mean a random worshipper who got powers from God because they're particularly devout (think Joan of Arc). A cleric would be assumed to be a priest or a priest-in-training. A cleric adventurer is a little different. A cleric adventurer is assumed to be a missionary, a traveling monk or friar, a templar knight, a war-priest, something like that.

All that being said, I don't like how 5e says that Clerics can get their powers from an ideal. I think that sucks. If you're a cleric, you are a religious character! Pick a religion or god, and follow the rules of that religion or god.

Druid

I don't like the concept of the fantasy druid because I don't know what the heck a fantasy druid is supposed be. I think people think it's some kind of nature wizard. If you want to be a nature wizard, just be a wizard who likes nature. Historically, and for clarity I mean historically in real life on planet earth, Druids were just the priest class of another religion (see my rant above about clerics as a social class). Therefore, in my opinion, Druids are just clerics.

And no wildshape. I don't need you people turning my game into a Hannah Barbara cartoon with goofy talking animals. You know some of you play your characters like Scooby-Doo; You know 90% of druid players do that. It's goofy, stop it.

Fighter

What is a fighter? It's kind of an abstract label. It means someone who fights, right? Let me put it like this, if fighter describes a social class in your setting, it describes the military class. A fighter can therefore be any sort of soldier or warrior from pikeman to legionnaire to knight to samurai. Your flavor of fighter therefore should suit the setting.

I'd believe that mechanically, barbarian, ranger, and Paladin, even bard if you only consider the warrior poet variety (see my rant about bards), should be variations or subclasses of fighter, not their own distinct classes. Let me try to convince you. Barbarian warriors are just fighters from another culture. Rangers have traded heavy armor for wilderness survival skills. Paladins are religious fighters. Read my sections about these specific classes for more. I also have thoughts about the monk as a fighter, but I won't discuss that here. 

The fighter should be the strongest martial class. There should not be a stronger martial class unless they're a prestige class. By prestige class, I mean a class that must be earned through merit and a class that has additional training, tools, powers, skills, or etc., that the average fighter does not have. An eldritch knight for example is a fighter with magic, and was a prestige class in 3e.

Monk

I don't think the monk belongs in D&D because the monk comes from another genre. I know there are people who disagree with D&D being strictly the fantasy genre, but I like D&D as being strictly of the fantasy genre, and Monks come from the kung-fu (or Wu Xia) genre. Here's why they don't go together. The martial artists of the kung-fu genre have a mystic power that comes from chi or ki. It gives them superhuman powers like a low-level superhero. They can do things like take hits from sticks without feeling it, take hits from blades without being cut, snatch live arrows out of the air, leap great heights, and fall great heights without harm. It's cool! It really is! But, in the words of Branden Sanderson, it's a soft magic system. It's a separate magic system from the D&D or a fantasy magic system. In my mind, it does not belong, like a square peg in a round hole or like macaroni art on the Mona Lisa. Further, I think it's valid to argue that your setting doesn't have a mystic life force or vitality (chi or ki) that one can train to become superhuman or have extraordinary abilities; and also that magic cannot be harnessed by a fighter to the same effect. I think that's completely valid! In D&D, a monk can punch ghosts - ethereal, intangible beings. I think that is at odds with the logic of the fantasy world that I would like to create (right now).

I would substitute a pugilist for the monk. Pugilist means barehanded fighter. Think boxer plus wrestler. It's a pit-fighter. I would make it a subclass or a variety of fighter. Maybe it's just a flavor of fighter and not necessarily its own class. It's a fighter with a specialty. If you look at my definition of what a fighter is in the Fighter, it's anyone who is trained in the art of war (essentially). And so in some cultures, the martial artists / pugilist would be the fighter. I personally don't think it's even a stretch. Any monk feature or feat that is plausible for a human adventurer in a fantasy setting is fair game for a fighter-only feat.

I want to add that I watched Critical Role campaign 2, and I like what Matt did with monks in his world. He made them librarians who were also a secret counter-tyranny order or something. Whatever, it was cool flavor.

Paladin

A paladin is something Gary Gygax made up. I can't say what he was thinking, but Paladin is a word that is derived from the Latin palatinus which means "of the palace". Do you see the connection? Palace. Paladin. Both words contain pala. Anyway, Paladins historically are the soldiers who are of the palace. They are essentially equivalent to the presidential security or secret service. You only put your best and most loyal guys in charge of the personal residence and protection of the royalty. In addition, since they're going to be the presence of the foreign delegates and other political guests, you want your security force to make you look good and reflect well on you. They are therefore going to be expected to have good etiquette meaning manners; not just manners, but they need to be able to speak properly to the noble class. Does any of this make sense yet? Elite soldiers who are very loyal to the laws, look presentable, speak well, and answer directly to the highest authority in the land. That's a paladin.

OK, so what about the weird fantasy powers of the paladin? You know, the healing touch, the summoning a majestic steed, divine sense, divine aura, divine spellcasting, immunity to disease, and the smiting evil? They do not get it from an oath! I wave my hand dismissively at your nerdy fantasy crap. The only powers that are cool is the healing touch and disease immunity, but only for a religious paladin. Here's the logic for that. Some kings have divine right to rule. That means their right to the land over which they rule comes from divinity, id est God. So, if the king's authority comes from God, then it logically follows that their most devout followers should get a splash of that divinity. Not all of it, just a hint of it that validates their king's divine right. The paladin is therefore a religious character, and a lawful character, and a variety or subclass or prestige class of fighter - not its own separate class.

Ranger

I think I'm halfway through the classes. Phew. Geeze. I'm such a nerd. Anyway, what is a ranger? Well, what is a range? In American English (the best English), the open range describes an area of land without boundaries. A range-er is therefore someone who lives or works on the range. But that's not entirely what a ranger is.

Imagine a frontiersman. What is a frontier? It's an unexplored area of wilderness where various dangers might live; typically, other cultures and specifically underdeveloped cultures. Apologies if you're sensitive to rhetoric that is not culturally sensitive, but the historic reality of the American settlers and the American natives are bloody, and it's not one-sided. Frontier life for settlers was dangerous, and this sort of conflict is what early D&D resembled with remote villages and fort towns on the edge of society where adventurers would start their adventures and push deeper and deeper into hostile, monster infested wilderness.

Or imagine a borderland. A border between kingdoms is not always distinct like a line on a map. Sometimes historically, a border was very unclear spatially; it might be unclear where one kingdom and its laws ends and the law of another kingdom begins. Therefore, the people who lived on a border might have neighbors with allegiances to the other kingdom. The borderlands were a place where the jurisdiction was unclear, and so the enforcement of the law might be messy.

What I'm trying to describe with these concepts of a range, a frontier, and a borderland is a place where people can more easily get away with crime and lawless behavior. Outlaws can hide out. Other threats to civilization lurk miles away and can attack randomly. A ranger is therefore a subclass or variation of fighter who specializes in fighting in the wilderness. They trade armor for outdoor survival skills. Their favored enemy describes the most common threat that they have to deal with.

There is no reason why rangers should have any spellcasting except that some guy at WotC thinks it's cool. I don't think rangers should get magic. Get rid of it.

Rogue

When most people think about the rogue, they think about the dexterity class. I don't. The rogue is derived from the thief class of classic D&D. The thief class was basically the normal dude of the group, but they had skills. They were (and are) the skill class. They couldn't hit as well as a fighter, and they couldn't avoid hits as well as a fighter. Instead, they could sneak, hide, listen for noises, disarm traps, pick locks, climb ropes, pick pockets, and backstab. That's what they did. They were a skill class for utility, not a class for combat.

Skills are based on intelligence. I'm not describing how D&D works, I'm describing how skills work in real life. Skills are something you learn through study and improve through practice. Mechanically, thieves benefitted from dexterity, but in reality, learning and mastering skills is benefited by having high intelligence. For reference, in 3e D&D, you got skill points to invest in skills, and your skill points were based on a combination of class and intelligence. In GURPS, intelligence is the basis for about half the skills in the catalog.

Assassin should not be available to players out of the gate because assassins get poison crafting and I think that makes it a prestige class because crafting of poisons should not be a common skill.

Sorcerer

A sorcerer is someone who has magic through an innate ability rather than book-learning like a wizard. Their innate ability comes from a magical bloodline, like having a dragon or some other magical creature somewhere in your ancestry. For clarity, you are not part dragon or part devil or part fey or whatever, you have a trace of that magical bloodline. Your pool of spells is therefore shallower than a wizard. I don't think this should be its own class; See wizard.

Warlock

A warlock is someone who has made a pact with an extraplanar entity, like a demon or devil for example, in exchange for magic. For clarity, your magic is granted by this bargain or agreement. I don't think this should be its own class; See wizard.

Wizard

The wizard in modern D&D is derived from the Magic-User in classic D&D. Mechanically, they can learn almost any arcane spell with research and by recording it in their spellbook. Thus, we have the tradeoff.

What's a magic-user? It's anyone who uses arcane magic. The idea was that we don't care what kind of magic you used, or what kind of magic-user you were because if you used magic, you were a magic-user. The wizard is a concept that, like druids, I don't know if I fully understand. It's a kind of magician - someone who uses magic. What kind? I don't know. I don't care either. There's no real-world equivalent. Similarly, what is a sorcerer or a warlock? I don't care. They're all magic-users and I don't care!

Therefore, I want magic-user or mage to be the class, and I want Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard (maybe bard or druid) to be flavors or subclasses or variations, not distinct, separate classes. What is the origin of your magic? How does it work? I don't care. You're a magician. No one cares. The kind of magician is not special, just like how the kind of fighter someone might be is not special. Calm down.

Crafting Class(es)

As I said earlier, if you can make quality goods for a living, why would you crawl into holes and fight monsters for gold? Let me rephrase the question like this: If you could make and sell Rolex watches for a living, why would you instead earn a living by fighting wild bears? Why wouldn't you just work for a living? Craftsman as adventuring classes are therefore a bit nonsensical.

I think modern D&D came up with a pretty good solution to crafting skills. 3e D&D had a single crafting skill for mundane goods, and a single crafting skill for magical goods, but 5e divided crafting into tool sets. You can get proficiency with a tool set through a background (or a feat?). Each tool set describes a single discipline or trade. Proficiency with a tool set allows you to create goods of that trade. For example, proficiency with Smithing Tools means you're skilled with smithing. The game doesn't use the term tool check and that is its first weakness! Its second weakness is that the catalog of crafting formulas and recipes and etc. weren't included or viable until they released one of the supplemental books, and it comes across like a patch or a fix.

So, if you want to be an alchemist in D&D, get proficiency with alchemy tools, and bang, you're an alchemist. It's not an adventuring class, it's something you can do now as an adventurer mostly during downtime. It requires a bit of investment at character creation or at one phase of character improvement, and it requires a bit of fenagling with downtime to make it work for you. It works; Not sure if it works for D&D 5e style play, but as a subsystem, it works. Not sure how I like it for describing crafting as a part of the setting either because it suggests to me that crafting magic potions is kind of easy or common.

So yeah, you don't need an artificer class or an alchemist class, you just need sensible restrictions on access to crafting skills and on what you can craft, when you can craft it, and what it costs to craft it. I would make sure there's a tradeoff but also make sure that it makes sense within the setting.

Summary

There are only four classes: Cleric, Fighter, Thief (or Rogue), and Mage. Druids do not need to be their own class because they can be their own subclass or variation of either cleric or mage depending on your setting. You don't need Barbarians, Paladins, or Rangers because they can be a subclass or variation of fighter. You don't need Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards because they can all be variations or subclasses of Mage. Bards are nonsense because the concept that you're trying to describe is a musical character. Anyone can be a musical. You don't need a class to be musical. Pick any class and flavor it as a musician or poet. Finally, Monks have their own soft magic system that describes are different type of fantasy. Also, they could be a variation or subclass of fighter.

More classes and subclasses do not give you more options, they give you more definition. Definitions means restrictions. Pick a class. Flavor it. Move on. There's a game called Olde Swords Reign (link) which is free by the way, that uses only four classes and allows you to customize these classes with feats. These feats resemble familiar class features. In essence, you can build your own variant class by adding feats. For example, you can give a fighter the rage feat. You're still a fighter, but you can rage.

Update: This post is unintentionally a follow up to a slightly older post (link) about class design.

TTRPG Foes - Stats, Lore, Design

Design

Monster stat blocks are too complicated! You only need to know three numbers: HP, Defense (or AC), and Damage. That's it! Maybe some notes about something special about it or the way it acts. Reader, you might be asking "what about this or that stat?" Sure. A to-hit bonus for example. Let me then rephrase my previous statement. You only need three numbers to describe an individual statistic.

I'm going to give you a game design tip from classic D&D. In classic D&D, every monster's stats were based on their number of hit dice. A monster with 3 hit dice had a +3 to hit and had the same saving throws as a level 3 fighter. That's very slick. It gets better! Monsters tended to appear with other monsters with the same number of hit dice. In fact, a dungeon would be several floors deep and the monster's number of hit die tended to match the floor number! Therefore, the saving throws and to-hit bonuses could easily be written on the map! What does that describe? A global statistic; in other words, a number representing the average statistic of an NPC in an area, room, or scene with a set difficulty.

So, consider treating each enemy as having individual stats like HP and what kind of damage it does, and treat each enemy has global stats that are dependent on the difficulty that the game's designer (the GM) set for the room. This simplifies prepping and running the game! Imagine determining that all the monsters in the room have a +4 to hit? Why should it vary? Really, what difference does a +1 or +2 make?

This is a supplement to a 2d6 game I wrote about here. Note that NPCs are not designed with the same logic as a PC! Here is a breakdown of statistics to use for NPCs:

• Hit Points (HP): How much points of damage an NPC can take. NPCs typically die at 0 HP. The game assumes generally low hit point values.
• HP values given are average for that variety of NPC.
• Small, weak enemies (ex: goblins) typically have 2-3 HP. They typically die in one hit.
• Human combatants typically have 5 HP and can typically survive one hit.
• Many enemies have 10 or so HP to reflect that they are comparable to a PC.
• Enemies that are larger than humans, lions, bears, or ogres, have 15+ HP.
• Giants and dragon tend to have 20 to 30 or more HP.
• Defense (Def): How hard the monster is to hit.
• 9 is the basic number a player needs to roll to succeed in the 2d6 game; however, individual monsters can have their own defense.
• Defense could easily be tied to the global difficulty.
• Damage (Dmg): It's attacks (claw, bite or weapon for example) and the number of damage dice it rolls for all of its attacks!
• Often, the damage will be based on the weapon it swings or its size class! A human-sized monster will do damage comparable to humans, a monster that is double the size of a human, like a lion, bear, or ogre, will do 2d6. Giants and dragons can be assumed to do 3d6.
• When "by weapon" is given for damage, this means you refer to typical weapon damage and even typical barehanded damage. 
• To-Hit Bonus (Hit): The bonus added to a monster's 2d6 toll to hit.
• This number is typically not written and is left up to the global difficulty.
• Damage Reduction (DR): This number is subtracted from damage received representing the amount of protection provided by the armor worn by the NPC, or sometimes a natural armor provided by a natural armor or armored body.
• If this number is not given, treat as 0. Most NPCs are considered unarmored and so they reasonably have a 0 DR.
• 1 DR is comparable to light armor.
• 3 DR is comparable to heavy or metal armor.
• Saving Throw (Save): Some attacks force a PC or NPC to make a roll to reduce the harm or to avoid some effect. The save represents how well a character is able to successfully avoid or resist an attack.
• This number is typically not given and is left up to the global difficulty.
• Classically there are different kinds of saves for different kinds of attacks. They usually break down to dodging an effect that can be dodged, or to resist an attack that cannot be dodged with either physical toughness or mental resilience.
• An NPC can be considered good or poor at a particular save as it suits them. A flying enemy may be considered good at dodging while airborne, etc. A warrior may be good at resisting fatigue. A wizard may be good at resisting mind control. Use your judgement. If an NPC is considered poor at a particular save, simply do not let them use the Save bonus offered by the global difficulty!
• Movement (Move): How far a character can move per turn. If move is not given, assume the typical movement for this NPC.
• If using grid and mini play, Move is typically six inches or one pencil length.
• If using theater of the mind, assume approximately 30 ft as typical.
• If using zones, one zone is typical.
• For simplicity, consider there are only three speeds: Slow (half a pencil length), normal (one pencil length), and fast (one and a half pencil lengths). If any move penalties are applied, assume that the character's move is lessened by one (ex: from fast to normal or normal to slow).
• Notes: Special notes are given under the stats about what characters can do and how. The stats and these notes both imply lore without describing it.

MONSTERS LIST

I believe that your monster list ought to be curated meaning you don't include everything! Your setting is not a kitchen sink. Below I have provided a curated list of stat blocks that might be found in a low fantasy setting. Some of the more fantastic things would occur rarely.

Alligator / Crocodile

HP 10 Def 9 Bite 1d6+2 DR 1

If bitten, you are automatically grappled

If grappled, the alligator can deathroll for 2d6 damage

Alligator / Crocodile, Giant

HP 18 Def 9 Bite 2d6+2 DR 3

If bitten, you are automatically grappled

If grappled, the alligator can deathroll for 2d6 damage

Bear (Grizzly or otherwise)

HP 18 Def 9 Bite or Claws 2d

Beastman (aka Hnoll, spotted, furry body resembles a man, head like a hyena)

HP 12 Def 10 Dmg by weapon or 1d6 bite

Blood Frenzy: Beastmen prioritize bloodied opponents

Bogyman (AKA Troll)

HP 15 Def 9 Dmg based on weapon

Regeneration: If slain, recovers in 24 hours with +1 to max HP and damage unless burned and beheaded.

Bugaboo (AKA Goblin)

HP 2-3 Def 9 Dmg based on weapon

Bullman (AKA Minotaur)

HP 20 Def 9 Hoof, Horns or Weapon 2d6

Gore - If gored, make a brawling check to avoid being grappled

Chimera (AKA Amalgam)

HP 25 Def 10 Claw, bite, Ram, etc. 2d6

Fire breath (15' Stream) 2d6

Tail can bite and inflict poison

(The) Damned (AKA)

HP 10 Def 9 Dmg by weapon

Weak to silver and magic

Deerman

HP 20 Def 9 Hoof, Atlers, or Weapon 2d6

Doll (AKA Golem)

HP 12 Def 9 Dmg based on weapon

*Immune to charm, sleep, paralysis, poison

Cannot fail morale checks

Dragon

HP 30 Def 13+ Claw, bite, etc. 3d6 DR 3

Fire breath (either 15' cone or 25' line) 3d6

PCs save vs fear or difficulty +1

Eaterman Bush

HP 10 Def 9 Dmg 1d6-1 (minimum 1)

Elemental, Major (Earth, Water, Air, or Fire)

HP 15 Def 9 Dmg 1d6+1

Not harmed by mundane weapons

Elemental, Minor (Earth, Water, Air, or Fire)

HP 8 Def 9 Dmg 1d6-1 (minimum 1)

Not harmed by mundane weapons

Elf

HP 10 Def 10 Dmg by weapon

Magical Bloodline: Bonus to Saves vs Magic

Affinity to Woods: Bonus to track and hide in forests

Fiend, Major (AKA demon or devil)

HP 15 Def 9 Dmg 1d6+1

Not harmed by mundane weapons

Fiend, Minor (AKA demon or devil)

HP 8 Def 9 Dmg 1d6-1 (minimum 1)

Not harmed by mundane weapons

Ghost

HP 10 Def 9* Touch 1d6 (max HP)

Life drain: damage is applied to max HP

Not harmed by mundane weapons

Levitates

Intangible

Griffon

HP 20 Def 10 Dmg 2d6

Flies

Big and strong enough to carry a human

Hangman's Tree

HP 30 Def 9 Strike 2d6 DR 1

Strike with branches and throw or pin, or ensnare to grapple!

Homunculus (Plural Homunculi, AKA artificial human, a product of alchemy)

HP 5 Def 9 Strike 1d6

Defect: The creation process is too precise. No two homunculi come out the same. All have a defect; if not physical, then mental.

Hybrid (any non-typical creature with features of two or more creatures, typically a product of alchemy)

HP 10 Def 9 Dmg by weapon

Leech (AKA Vampire)

HP 20 Def 10 Dmg 2d6 DR by armor

Liger

HP 30 Def 9 Bite 2d6

Makes charge attacks - jaws first and pins the target.

Lizardman

HP 5 Def 9 Dmg by weapon 1d6-1 (min 1)

Vulnerable to cold

Manticore

HP 20 Def 9 Claw or Tail 2d6

Tail has a 10 ft reach

Spike 30'

Nymph (Including siren, dryad, Ice Maiden, Venus)

HP 5 Def 9 By weapon

Charming Appearance (nymph): Upon sight, men save vs charm

Charming Gaze (dryads) or Song (sirens): when in seeing or hearing range, save vs mind control

Ogre

HP 18 Def 9 Dmg 1d6+2

+4 to Brawling

If hit, save vs being knocked prone!

Ratdog (a rat-doberman mix)

HP 8 Def 9 Bite 1d6-1 (min 1), Save vs Disease

If bitten, Ratdog can choose to grapple with its jaws

Ratkin (creatures resembling rat men about two feet tall)

HP 2-3 Def 9 Bite 1d3 + Save vs Disease

Reaper (reaper is a class; each reaper is an individual fulling the role of a reaper uniquely)

HP 20 Def 10 Dmg by Weapon

Green Flame: Cast a projectile of green flame (1d6); if hit, you are ignited

Eerie Lantern: When lit, this light stuns the living with fear. Roll to save.

Dirge: Sings a song that quells hostile undead

Passage: Create a passage to the afterlife.

Revenant

HP 10 Def 9 Dmg based on weapon

Undead, but retains their personality although twisted with a need for vengeance

Immune to charm, paralysis, sleep, poison

Does not heal

Cannot fail morale checks

Scare Crow (enchanted object)

HP 5 Def 8 Dmg 1d3

Call Swarm (of crows) up to 3 swarms. Swarm has 10 HP, Def 9, and does 1d6 damage

Command Swarm (of crows) attack for 1d6 damage

Skeleton

HP 5 Def 8 Dmg 1d6 Move Slow

Slime (a product of alchemy, rarely occurring in nature)

HP 5 Def 8 Dmg 1d6

Acidic; -1 to equipment on contact

Not harmed by mundane attacks

Snake Bearer (AKA Ophiuchus) 

HP 5 Def 9 Dmg by weapon

Its left arm ends with the head of a venomous snake! On a hit, save vs Poison.

Snakeman

HP 5 Def 10 Dmg by weapon

Its left arm ends with the head of a venomous snake! On a hit, save vs Poison.

Snatcher (AKA Harpy)

HP 8 Def 10 Dmg 1d6

Flight, fast speed

Spider, Giant (a 3ft tall spider)

HP 10 Def 9 Dmg 1d6-1, min 1, save vs Poison

Web, save vs Grappled!

Titan Snake (Aka Goliath)

HP 40 Def 9 Bite or Constrict 3d6

Snake (ex: Viper)

HP 2-3 Def 9    Bite save vs deadly poison

Wil-o-wisp

HP 2-3 Def 9    Dmg none

Not harmed by mundane attacks

Flies and sheds light like a torch

Hypnosis upon sight: Save or follow it, possibly until you die of starvation

Witch (AKA Hag, Crone)

HP 10 Def 9 Damage by spell

Sleep (AOW up to three within 15 ft)

Deep Mist: Creates an area of concealing, chilly fog. To-hit -2!

Poisonous Touch vs 1 within 5 ft. Save vs poison.

Curse Word vs 1 within 30 ft, save vs disease, mute, or blindness

Illusionary Foe within 60 ft: Conjure an illusionary foe to district and chase one PC.

Conjure Demon or Elemental within 20 ft.

Enchant Object: Create an NPC such as a scare crow from one large object or many smaller objects

Petrifying Spit (10 ft) vs 1: Save or become stone!

Either Fly or Port - a witch can fly for the duration of the encounter, or teleport as a movement for the duration of the encounter. Her normal movement is doubled.

Frost Bolt (1d6): Cast a ray of chilly air and ice at one Character! On a hit, the creature's move is reduced to half their normal move.

Scry: Remotely view a scene in a reflective object, usually a crystal ball or the surface of water.

Create Zombie or Golem (requires one workday): The witch can create a revenant or zombie from a corpse, neither of which is obedient, or a golem from a mixture of human ashes mixed with clay. 

Werewolf

HP 10 Def 10 Claw or Bite 1d6

On a hit, save vs curse of the werewolf (lycanthropy)

Requires silver weapons or magic to harm.

Wolf

HP 5 Def 10 Bite 1d6-1 (min 1)

If bitten, wolf can choose to grapple

Zombie

HP 10 Def 9 Dmg based on weapon Move Slow

Grapples first, then bites

Immune to charm, paralysis, sleep, poison

Rots and stinks

Cannot fail morale checks

Flow State to Speed Up TTRPG Combat - Game Design & Managing Expectations

I have played in many sessions where we spent more than one hour in a single combat round. Ever since then, I have a newfound resentment for a game I already resent (D&D 5e).

The matter of how to speed up combat in D&D (or other TTRPGs) is more than just a few tips. I want combat to be as fast as any freeform roleplay scene. For that, we have to make concessions to rules and structure. It's in changing player behaviors. It's in changing GM behaviors. It's in changing the rules of your game. I warn you, it might not resemble the same game after you make all these changes. A fast game pace is prioritized over accuracy and complexity of game rules. You might think I'm asking a lot from you, and that I'm asking a lot from your players, but I promise you people will be playing TTRPGs like this in a hundred years. Also, this blog post is just over 4,199 words.

Flow

Flow as in flow state which is a term in psychology that describes the experience of being totally immersed and focused that you lose track of time and performance feels effortless. Think about streaming a movie or video with bad internet connection. The movie stops and stutters every few seconds to buffer. That's very annoying. Most people I know would rather wait for the internet to work properly to watch the movie. No one wants to put up with an analogue medium like a CD where the CD is all scratched up and the tracks don't play right. You want to press play on the movie or the album, and you want the experience to be smooth and fluid from start to finish. No interruptions.

It's difficult to get immersed in something when the quality is choppy and you're constantly being mentally and emotionally disengaged from the substance of the story or the game, then you have to reengage. D&D and TTRPGs are like this. You want to cut out all unnecessary interruptions, pauses or delays in the game. Here's a short list of interruptions: players asking questions (about anything), side conversations, side conversations, distractions (smartphones), people making jokes that don't match the mood of the scene, side conversations again, players not knowing how their spells work, using D&D Beyond with sh@#ty internet connection, players rolling dice to make decisions about how to roleplay their character, people looking up rules in the book, players talking over other players, players not being ready on their turn, and last but not least, side conversations again. I'm going to tell you now, curb anything that makes people disengage from the game and have to reengage with it. The best way to do that is to tell people no breaking character. When people break character, that's when all this stuff starts to happen. No breaking character!

Flow is very important to me in particular because I have ADHD! To me, interrupting flow or causing me to disengage from something I'm focusing on causes frustration. Breaking flow state is a certainty; There is no avoiding it, but, we can do better to preserve it! interruptions cause people to check out or tune out. Their minds wonder. They get impatient. They get frustrated. They get bored. If players are bored because they have to wait for their turn, that's bad GMing! It's bad GMing because you're letting the other players cause interruptions that are easily avoidable. Or you're running a game that's too slow and clunky because there are too many unique powers and spells and maneuvers with very specific rules to get right. Yep, it's you. Train your players and switch games! All of my ideas below are about stream-lining the game, making it more intuitive, being more flexible, being clearer, and encouraging awareness of flow and to preserve it!

Initiative

What is the first thing that slows combat down? It's when the GM says "roll initiative". I used to get excited or anxious, but I roll my eyes and groan these days because initiative is not an important or essential part of a TTRPG. Here are the downsides of initiative. This moment feels like pausing a movie right before the best part to take drink orders. Sure it takes a minute if you're efficient, but it takes people out of the mood. It's a moment where people can take a breather and tension is partially relieved, when people break character, decide that now is a good time to read that rule or read their character sheet for the right thing to do. It's a moment where people start making jokes or talking strategy. The momentum and energy of the scene is lost. In addition, you also have to make and keep a list. I have seen players get their turns skipped more than once. In my experience, it happens very frequently, and it ruins flow for everybody! This happens because initiative turn order is not intuitive. By intuitive, I mean being able to do something without thinking about it. You know what's intuitive? Clockwise turn order. Do clockwise turn order instead.

Why do we roll for initiative anyway? Because that's a rule in the game. Really? That's it? Because it's fair? It's not. Because we like the randomness or unpredictability? Then reroll from round to round. Because we like when the dice tell the story? What if the result doesn't make sense for this scene?

Here's my solution. I have two rules for initiative. First, the general rule is he who takes initiative gets initiative. Before you get excited, here's my point of view. The game is fiction, but that doesn't mean anything goes. There must still be a make-believe world with believable logic (else that's a distraction and we risk breaking flow). If the fighter kicks down the door and declares his intention to charge inside a room, then we roll initiative and the fighter rolls poorly and ends up last in turn order, that means he kicks down the door but somehow the other PCs run inside first, or the NPCs somehow, pending surprise, can potentially get up from whatever they were doing, charge for the door, and hammer the fighter before he goes. That's silly. If the use of the initiative roll ruins the internal logic of the world and the scene, you're using a rule inappropriately. The scenario with the fighter kicking down the door and going last happened in one of my games. It causes a certain cognitive dissonance (which is a mental distraction caused by overthinking) because it's blatantly absurd, and we all laugh at it. That moment of absurdity sort of spoils the mood of the scene. Therefore, the initiative roll is not mandatory and is situational. In fact, your goal should be to make the transition from non-combat into combat seamless. If one side can reasonably act first, they go first! Don't spoil a perfectly planned ambush with a random die roll.

My second rule of initiative roll is to use it to resolve uncertainty only. The perfect time to use an initiative roll is at the start of a duel when two fighters are staring each other down. Then the coin hits the ground. Then they draw their weapons and lunge almost simultaneously. You can even have them roll initiative after they declare their actions.

Interrupting Turn Order

Anything that interrupts or disrupts turn order causes someone to have to stop what they're in the middle of doing it, think about something new, resolve it, then go back to the last thing, and work forward from there. That's messy, occasionally frustrating, and it is an interruption of flow for someone. "What was I doing? Where were we?" "You were here." "Oh yeah." For these reasons, all reactions and held actions are either banned or work like actions. You can go when it's your turn. You cannot go when its someone else's turn. Ever. Even if you're the GM and your NPC has a special legendary action or lair action or whatever that lets them act on someone elses turn. Eff that.

It also stings bugs the ever-living hell !@#$% out of me when it's about to be someone's turn, they're prepared and ready and excited to go, then you cut them off to resolve the interruption, then you get back to that player and they're no longer ready. Ugh! This can happen because the interrupting action can change the conditions of the scene and spoil that player's idea. Interrupting turns should be a technical foul!

Once You Declare Your Action, You Can't Take It Back! (No redo's)

Can I redo my turn? I didn't know there was an obvious, big open pit there. My character would have been smart enough not to do that thing I did. He would have done this other thing instead. The answer is no redo's. Once you declare your action, you cannot change it. This will train players to pay more attention to your descriptions of the room or scene. Part of the problem with redos is they're pathetic. They are. They make everyone look at you and think "oh come on, man." Imagine watching an athlete ask the referee or the announcer if they can redo the last play. It breaks flow and this can spoil the mood of the scene, and that should be a foul.

Player Descriptions

Players absolutely have to describe their own actions! It's not even in question. Tell the players they are co-narrators. It's not about flavor, but it could be; instead, player responsibility is to clearly state what they're doing and how. The intent of the action should be clear. The intended outcome of the action should not be ambiguous. Leave nothing to interpretation. If the GM has to ask for clarification so they can make a ruling, that's back-and-forth we could avoid. It can help everyone if your description states where your character ends their turn. "I run up to the goblin next to the pile of skulls and I hit him with my axe" tells us where you are in space - next to the pile of skulls. This is better than next to goblin #5 because we have to think about where goblin #5 is. Also, avoid using game terminology. Avoid "I use 20 feet of movement to..." Instead, use natural language. "I run across the room to..." Avoid "I use my action to attack..." Instead say "I thrust my sword at the goblin." Use present tense too. Don't say "I'm going to attack the goblin," say "I attack the goblin." That's more concrete, therefore its clearer.

GMs, when the spotlight returns to you, do not restate a player action or narration. "As you swing your sword..." or "as you draw back your bowstring..." Just say what happens after. "You see the goblin's face go white with fear and your sword cuts through their flesh for 6 damage!" Done.

No Out-Of-Character Questions

Sometimes players ask "can I use my such-and-such skill/power/feature to do this thing?" In other words, they either want to know, one, if the rules of the game permit something, or two, they want to know how the Game Master will rule on something before they commit to it. Either way, these questions interrupt flow. You need to remove all of these sorts of moments from the game! All of them!

The solution to the first issue is to tell your players to think about the game as a story telling exercise first and a game second. If you can reasonably do something in real life, you can do it in the game. For example, the game doesn't have rules for hitting someone with the stock of your crossbow, but you absolutely could do this in real life, therefore, you can do it in the game. I don't care what the !@#$% rules say, you absolutely can whack someone with your shotgun by swinging it like a club or hammer. The reason why people have these questions is because they don't trust the GM or because they don't understand the setting or the game. Don't answer these questions; instead, remind the player about the basics of the game. Here's how to play a TTRPG: the player describes their action, then the GM makes a damn ruling and moves on with the game! Also encourage players to treat the setting like a believable world. If something can reasonably work in real life, it effing works in the make-believe world too!

The second issue has been called test-driving your turn. The player doesn't want to commit to something because they're trying to make sure that they're doing the optimal thing first. The solution is to tell them that this is an out-of-character question and tell them that they would be metagaming if they use your answer, and they absolutely would be metagaming. What is metagming? According to D&D 5e's DMG, it's thinking about the game like a game. According to most people, metagaming is making decisions in-character using out-of-character knowledge. The fact is, that weird thing you're asking about, your character wouldn't have access to the GMs answer. You the player are asking the GM a question when you should be immersed in the scene, and you should be in your character's head and you should be thinking about what they would do in the moment. That's what should be the basis for what you're doing on your turn, not a potential GM ruling.

Strategizing is Allowed Before Combat Starts (in play!), Not During

Speaking of metagaming, if a combat round represents mere seconds of time, you don't have time to strategize in the middle of combat. Therefore, any out-of-character conversation is metagaming. Plan ahead. If you're not prepared, why are you getting into a fight? You're playing your character like you don't care what happens to your character. You're thinking about the game like a game, not a role-play exercise or story-telling exercise. Cut that out!

Ready Bonus

If a player is ready on their turn, they get a +2 bonus to their roll. What does ready mean? To avoid argument and to establish expectations, it means that as soon as it is your turn, without any hesitation or delay, you state clearly and concisely what you do and how you do it. No questions. No reading your character sheet. No reading the rules. No questions. No making jokes. None of that crap. Pay attention to the game and be ready!

Skip Turns

If players aren't ready on their turns, that's fine, but people are not entitled to take forever. If they're dragging their ass, you can rule that their character hesitates this round and skip their turn. How much ass dragging is too much? I don't know, feel it out, but give them a last call to declare their action before skipping them. Make sure that everyone is aware of the rule before play.

Consider that players should not have thinking time if their characters do not have thinking time. Thinking time means engagement is not effortless because people are thinking. Part of the definition of flow state is that performance is effortless. Tell players not to be afraid to make decisions with their gut, not their head!

One Action Per Turn

On your turn, players can do one thing! This is called your action! There is no move action. You can act without moving, you can move without acting, and you can move as part of your action up to your maximum movement, but attacking ends your turn. Speech of any kind does not cost your action because you can reasonably speak while running and swinging a sword, but you can speak only one simple sentence per combat round due to the length of time that one combat round represents. One action per turn means shorter turns. Shorter turns means less waiting for your turn. It helps alleviate the problem of people from getting bored and checking out and being bored. Did I mention that long turns are boring?

I advocate cutting bonus actions and multi-attacks too! Every time I hear a player say "that ends my turn." or a GM ask "is that the end of your turn?", I get a little annoyed because that's an interruption in the flow of the game. It should be clear when your turn is over. We shouldn't need to seek confirmation. The exception is if you can describe your action and bonus action in one smooth, fluid sentence, like writing a line in the book; and also refer to the rule about no redo's. You hit the monster twice even though he dies on the first hit. Moving on. Consider that in chess, when you take your hand off your piece, your turn is over. In this game, when you punctuate your description, your turn is over.

Let's talk about a way that actions get a little loosey-goosey. I'm talking about the free action. This is the, ahem, thing that you can do as part of your action because it's so, so simple. Like drawing your weapon or opening a door. People can get stuck on this. Stuck is an interruption to flow state. Why? Because the rules can't cover every conceivable situation. So, a GM ruling is sometimes necessary here. Here's how to think about it: it's not about the number of things you can or can't do, it's about if you can reasonably do any / all of them in the length of time that your combat turn represents. If it sounds reasonable, let it happen. If it's cool and it doesn't cause cognitive dissonance, let it happen. This is charitable and simple.

One Action, One Roll

If an action is particularly complex, don't break it down into multiple steps and resolve each step. For example, let's say I describe my action as "I grab a discarded shied off the ground, then use it to slide down the banister of the stairs, dismount at the bottom, flip through the air, grab onto the chandelier, swing ten feet and fling myself past the soldiers, then tumble and roll, and run into cover behind the column." Let's say the rules let you do all these things on your turn. Resolve it with one roll! Because there are so many places to fail, then the lower the roll, the earlier in the sequence they fail. Easy. You might (might!) even say they that because they character is doing so much, that the difficulty is slightly greater. Actually, why do we need to roll?

Rules about Jokes (AKA Don't Spoil the Mood)

Jokes are part of the game. We are all very, very aware of the absurdity of this exercise; of sitting around a table and pretending we live in a world where Taco Bell doesn't exist and we're all really tempted to make a Taco Bell joke, or make a movie or song reference, or whatever. It's normal and some people would even say it's part of the hobby or the fun. To an extent, sure. As long as the jokes don't cause too big a delay, no harm; however, if we establish a scary scene or a sad scene, don't @#$%! spoil the mood! If you undermine the mood, you're a spoil sport to someone else. That's like talking during a movie. Don't do it! Exceptions are case-by-case, like if it's in-character and your character would totally say something inappropriate. As the GM, it is appropriate to do one arbitrary and malicious thing to the offending player's character as long as it doesn't harm the innocent player's character, but keep it within the logic of the scene. For example, an NPC who loses respect for that character. If no NPCs are obviously around, God is.

Simplified Character Sheets and Stat Blocks

Imagine flipping your character sheet over so that it's face down and then playing your character or NPC. Can you do this? If the answer is no, then your game is to complex. Stop it. Shame on you. If you have to look your character sheet over in the middle of the game, that means you're not paying attention to the game. You're missing GM descriptions or you're missing out on what the other players are doing or what's happening. If you're missing information, you might need to ask for it, and that causes an interruption. If you have to read the dumb rules about how to run your character when you should be describing what you do and how you do it, that's an interruption. Either learn your !@#$% better, or play a simpler game!

No Rules Discussion

None! Zero! Make a ruling and move on with the game! Allow players to make a simple case for why something should go their way, and err in their favor or in favor of fun. No rule books. No reading rules allowed. No interpreting rules. No discussing how you would make a ruling. None - not during the game at least. Use the honor system. If you have questions or concerns, make a note to review it outside of the game. Deemphasize the rules. They're not perfect. There is no right way to play and there is no perfectly designed rule set or game. The game designers are flawed and imperfect just like you and me.

Treat Rooms and Scenes as if they are in a Quantum State

If a player is not confident in the specifics about room or scene, such as its shape, size, features, or other obstacles, this is going to cause them to want to ask questions. Oof! That's no good! So, here's the problem, we can't always get a room or scene as precise and literal like a professionally drawn tactical map! Then the solution is to embrace abstract space. Play "yes, and" and don't say no. Consider that rooms and their features are in a quantum state meaning things both exist but also don't exist at the same time, and we only know for certain when something is in the scene because someone speaks it into the scene.

Describe the theme and general features of the room once when the players enter a room, and tell the players they are allowed to have some say about what features are available to them. If it's a library, then anything that would reasonably be in a library is there! If they're in a kitchen, then they can pick up a knife off any counter and throw it; they don't need to ask where the knives are. If they're in a graveyard, they can always kneel and take cover behind a big tomb stone! If they're in a dense forest, then line of sight is always broken when characters are more than one move away. If a player is in a bar, there are stools and plates and mugs of ale handy, and they get tossed around when someone gets knocked into a table really hard.

With this rule, you'll need the players to track their own position in the room! Have them  include in the description of their action where they start and end their turn each round. I move from the door to the goblin in the corner. I run from the side of the room and hop up onto the table in the center. If we lose track of where you are, that's your responsibility, and we're not waiting for you to figure it out. I'm telling you where you are and you're going to like it. Also, be less strict about exact distances and placement. Don't count squares if you can just use a 6" pencil and approximate your move.

Simultaneous NPC Turns

If you have a group of like-NPCs, you can describe what they all do in one or two fluid sentences (because we're effectively using side-initiative). "These three goblins attack you" you say as you move three goblin minis to the fighter's mini, "and these two goblins attack you" you say as you move two goblin minis to the ranger. Then you make three attack rolls against the fighter, then roll damage, then two attack rolls against the ranger, then roll damage. Then say "the fighter takes 6 damage, the ranger takes 4." Remember the flavor. There, your turn is done. Roll attack and damage dice together, of course. Roll all of them at once! Group the dice based on proximity before reading them. Read dice left to right. Do not run trash mobs individually.

Simultaneous Player Turns

Speaking of consolidating turns, do this. Go around the table and have all players declare an action (including movement). That's it, nothing else. "I move and attack the goblin on the right of the evil shrine", "I shoot the goblin priest from the door", "I cast a spell on the crowd of goblins in the middle of the room." Once everyone's action is declared, then they roll dice. Then you describe the results. "You miss the goblin on the right side of the shrine, you hit the goblin priest, you blow up three goblins with your spell." Done. Use this for less important fights. Hell, use it for any fight.