Everything you think about Game Mastering is probably wrong: Part XIV - Orval is not for Chugging
For those not versed in the finer points of European monastic traditions, Orval is a Trappist Beer. Brewed by monks in an ancient and dying tradition. Every year there seem to be fewer and fewer Trappist Beers available. It is a fine luxury, and so it is meant to be savoured. It isn't meant to be slammed back after a day in the hot sun before parking your posterior on the sofa and eating some stale bugles.
Where am I going with this? I'll loop back to it. I just want to draw out how this relates to my real point for as long as possible to increase your investment in reading this article. Even this paragraph explaining that feeds into the same purpose of stalling the reveal. Diabolical.
So, how long is a combat round? Originally it was a minute. Play that out in your head, just start a timer and start waving around the nearest cardboard tube like a sword for a full minute. Given the demographic of who is reading this and the fact a few extra pounds have probably been gained during COVID (author’s note, this was written during the pandemic) and I am betting a lot of you might even be getting winded long before a full minute of exercise fighting for your life. This is a very low level of fidelity, in that a round of combat represents an entire sword fighting scene in a classic movie resulting in a single landed blow against your opponent. High level fights might last an hour of game time.
More modern RPGs tend to have settled on 6-second combat rounds. I agree with this and use it for NGR. It's still a damn long time for things to occur, but it isn't as ludicrous. Wave that tube around like Errol Flynn for 6 seconds and you will become aware of exactly how much could happen in 6 seconds.
One of the reasons I dislike grid combat over more fluid "theatre of the mind" is how odd it gets with exacting movement (often 30 feet) in 6 seconds. Painfully slow, though also fast if you count dodging too and fro. What do I mean by that?
D&D Combat is often envisioned (and described by game masters) in high-octane split second decisions "The orc swings its axe but it glances off your shield! Quick! What do you do!". There is a drive to force instant decisions and move the rounds through in a frenzy. This is doomed to fail, or at least be less effective than it could be. Why?
Back to some of the original posts in series, it doesn't respect the medium. High octane action like that used to be the domain of RPGs if you played in the early days. But then video games came out and they have flourished. When a medium's limits are exceeded the limits become the defining traits of the medium. You will never have an RPG with the same high-octane energy as a well made video game and unless your players are Amish they will know this. It's an uphill battle.
What RPGs do better than a video game is to lean into the tactical infinity they offer and move combat to a somewhat slower pace. A pace where a round of fighting isn't trying to paint a Frazetta painting in the minds of the people at the table (or at least not always) but of the clashing blades of Errol Flynn. There is a period of circling, eying up the opponent, and then a flurry of action before stepping back to try again (or gloat over a dying foe). This isn't even immersion breaking if you've seen combat footage. In a more modern setting there will be a lot of hiding in cover and talking with your squad mates (other party members) before popping up to fire off some rounds and ducking back.
Now that we've established this method of doing things (because I can't hear your objections written after the fact), let us look at how the play of RPGs can lean into this. Be fairly open with the dice and numbers. Let players figure out and calculate the odds. While you don't want to slow down combat needlessly, letting players fret and stew over the chances of success for various courses of action builds tension and adds a feeling of agency over the outcomes. It's why players roll their own dice in the first place.
Obviously there are limits, analysis paralysis is real. But letting players stew over the choices of a low-probability/high impact action or the reverse for 30 seconds isn't "bogging down the game" if done right, its savouring a mouthful of a fine Trappist beer instead of chugging it down like a can of Old Milwaukee at a teenage quarry party. If thinking about the scene at hand for 30 seconds is bogging the game down then you have probably fucked up and created a scenario where the combat at hand is inconsequential and the action being taken is meaningless. If it's that meaningless, just roll a d6 and say "chip in that many luckpoints/hitpoints and narrate how you win" and save even more time. Seriously do that, that isn't me shit talking. It is a rule in NGR.
The counterpoint is that it's boring when it's not your turn. If the turn lengths are 6 seconds in 5 PC game then in 5 minutes of game play you'd have a minute of making decisions and four minutes of waiting. If the turns are 30 seconds long... you still have a minute of making decisions and four minutes of waiting. That is assuming there is no overhead, even as simple as "ok, who is next? Pat you are up next" followed up by "Uh, one sec".
If one player consistently takes longer? That is a problem, but more one with the player specifically (unless its a situation where you have set up to have one character be responsible for solo tasks like Bilbo as "The Burglar" or Templeton Peck as "The Face", which is an unrelated problem)
In short: Don't blame a player for liking to think about a choice for bogging down the game you have apparently designed to take place only in bogs. Design a better game that isn't ruined by stopping to smell the roses.