Table Talk. How do I police it?

[Stuvius]

I am new to the forums. I am really enjoying the discussions so I thought I would join in.

I am a new DM and recently finished running my first campaign. Though it went well, I did encounter a problem I was unsure of how to handle. During combat my players would often engage in conversations about what action they would/should take next. This involved soliciting or offering specific plans regarding their characters next attack or maneuver. It is important to note that their characters would not have been able to speak to each other in this manner as they were engaged in combat or too far away to hear each other. As DM, I would prefer this not go on as I feel it takes away from the story element and prolongs combat encounters unnecessarily. I have spoken to the players and asked them to avoid this however it often happens anyway. I am considering a penalty (perhaps a lost action on their next turn) to help curb this. I want to try and correct the issue without appearing heavy handed. Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

[Malaqai]

I'm not sure that in-combat strategizing needs policing. Penalizing them the way you suggested (penalizing players in general, really) is just going to antagonize your players, and that's not fun for anyone. I know that in-combat talking isn't the most realistic thing in the world, but it's a game - and it gets your players to interact with one another and have fun. If you feel like combats are taking too long, institute a time limit on each player's turn (my table runs one minute turns after which you must declare an action or lose the turn). Just make sure that they're aware of the time limit and that you adhere to it too when moving NPCs around.

[Doug Lampert]

I am new to the forums. I am really enjoying the discussions so I thought I would join in.

I am a new DM and recently finished running my first campaign. Though it went well, I did encounter a problem I was unsure of how to handle. During combat my players would often engage in conversations about what action they would/should take next. This involved soliciting or offering specific plans regarding their characters next attack or maneuver. It is important to note that their characters would not have been able to speak to each other in this manner as they were engaged in combat or too far away to hear each other. As DM, I would prefer this not go on as I feel it takes away from the story element and prolongs combat encounters unnecessarily. I have spoken to the players and asked them to avoid this however it often happens anyway. I am considering a penalty (perhaps a lost action on their next turn) to help curb this. I want to try and correct the issue without appearing heavy handed. Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

Typically not worth worrying about, the characters will have had lots of time to work out tactics and tactical signals, that time is dead boring to roleplay, but it exists and there's no reason not to let the players benefit by coordinating as well as their extraordinarily well trained characters would.

Similarly the characters have lots of training and information the players don't. Again, there's no reason to hold this against the players or characters.

But if you feel that you must stop this anyway, then:

1) If you say it and it's not about who gets the pizza or something else out of game, then your character said it. The enemies get to hear the advice and react accordingly.

Or much more draconian (and less realistic):

2) Talking is a free action, but the GM may impose reasonable limits based on the fact that a round is 6 seconds. Six second after someone asks for or offers advice the character's turn goes NOW, with him doing what he's said he's doing. If he hasn't said what he's doing, then he spent those six seconds pointlessly hesitating or waiting for advice. NEXT!

This runs into the problem that describing an action can take a lot longer than doing it and the players are trying to visualize something based on descriptions and a low quality map (at best) rather than seeing it in front of them, so if using (2) you need to be careful not to count time spent getting descriptions of the setting that the character could trivially see or time spent describing actions against a character. The limit is about 6 seconds of thought or advice time, not about 6 seconds total.

[hymer]

May I suggest you start by getting a mandate from the table. Talk about it, ask them what they feel about this bogging down of the game, and find out if they will be okay with an expectation that they won't get to speak to each other much more than their characters can.
It may help to illustrate your point if you have a situation in which the PCs have trouble communicating - say in a Silence effect or because they aren't in the same place at the same time - and ward off interference with something like "He can't hear you right now. There's a Silence effect." This should be understandable and acceptable to the players, and open up this IC vs. OC communication problem.

[Stuvius]

Thanks for the suggestions. I certainly do not want to take way from the fun or the spontaniety of the game(that is why we play after all!:smallbiggrin: )I will try some of these ideas.

[Psyren]

We did this so much in one campaign that our DM gave us communicator macguffins so we could at least roleplay it:smalltongue:

[Faily]

As long as it does not actually distract from the game itself (such as people being very loud and thus taking the spotlight from the one who is currently on their turn), I don't see much of a problem with strategy-talk OOC.

The PCs spend much more time with eachother than what it actually roleplayed, and while they spend 8 hours a day walking, another 8 sleeping, they do something during those last 8 hours, which could be with working out tactics within the group and learning more about what the rest of the party can do (like, the wizard informs the party how his Haste-spell works and notes to them that they shouldn't be so far apart for him to enhance them with his magic).

The PCs have better information about what they are capable of than many players do. Not all players are tactically-apt or well-versed with how all spells work, and I wouldn't penalize them for asking for help from other players. Also, by doing this when its not their turn allows them to be more ready when their turn comes up.

As long as it's not outright meta-gaming, it's not really much of an issue.

[Doug Lampert]

Thanks for the suggestions. I certainly do not want to take way from the fun or the spontaniety of the game(that is why we play after all!:smallbiggrin: )I will try some of these ideas.

Note that while I offered two suggestions for how to stop this, my main point matches what's said below.

The game isn't adversarial, and the players are spending much less time on this and have much lower stakes than the characters. It's perfectly reasonable for the characters to act in better coordination and with better tactics than their players can manage.

Discussion to close this gap is only a problem if it's actually causing a problem such as players being told that they "must" do X because of the tactical situation.

If it's just advice and tactical discussions, quite likely this is just somewhat equalizing the gap between player knowledge and skill and character knowledge and skill.


As long as it does not actually distract from the game itself (such as people being very loud and thus taking the spotlight from the one who is currently on their turn), I don't see much of a problem with strategy-talk OOC.

The PCs spend much more time with eachother than what it actually roleplayed, and while they spend 8 hours a day walking, another 8 sleeping, they do something during those last 8 hours, which could be with working out tactics within the group and learning more about what the rest of the party can do (like, the wizard informs the party how his Haste-spell works and notes to them that they shouldn't be so far apart for him to enhance them with his magic).

The PCs have better information about what they are capable of than many players do. Not all players are tactically-apt or well-versed with how all spells work, and I wouldn't penalize them for asking for help from other players. Also, by doing this when its not their turn allows them to be more ready when their turn comes up.

As long as it's not outright meta-gaming, it's not really much of an issue.

[JusticeZero]

When their turn comes up, they have to act. no discussion. When your turn comes up, "What are you doing?" If they start discussing, just say "You pass." and move to the next person. Do this with brutal predictability and don't waver.

[Seto]

At least they're taking interest in the fight and not talking about completely unrelated OOC matters ! Could be worse. :smalltongue:

[Toliudar]

At least they're taking interest in the fight and not talking about completely unrelated OOC matters ! Could be worse. :smalltongue:

Amen. I find that anything that discourages conversation at the table, or chat among players, may contribute to realism but makes for a duller game.

[Zanos]

When their turn comes up, they have to act. no discussion. When your turn comes up, "What are you doing?" If they start discussing, just say "You pass." and move to the next person. Do this with brutal predictability and don't waver.
Didn't know D&D was speed chess.

[Curmudgeon]

Didn't know D&D was speed chess.
It's not, but slowing down the pacing removes dramatic tension from the game. One DM I knew used to work with a stopwatch on a lanyard. If you went more than 10 seconds without stating your PC's actions, that PC was using Delay; if he got to the end of the round without the player speaking up, they didn't act that round. His games were fairly exciting, and nobody was ever playing with their cell phones.

[Kazudo]

I do minor punishments for out of game talk at my table. We do "horns up" (where you place your hands on your head and make elk horns) when speaking out of character. This doesn't actually mean when you're describing an action or something, but rather just when you're talking about out of game stuff. If you're talking about pizza or something like that without your horns up, you're talking about it in character and confusing/giving away position/whatever. You'd be surprised how much that helps keep the out-of-game stuff off the table when peoples' arms get tired after ten minutes of conversation.

As far as describing actions, when we have ample room to do so (so, yaknow, not at my cramped little house) we typically actually require standing up to describe an action you do. You can speak nonactions out of character with horns up or speak actions in character standing. Everything you say sitting, horns down at the table is in character conversation.

It sounds really annoying, but it gets the point across. I only really pull that out when the game gets absolutely ROTTEN with out of game conversation and such. There was one session where I had a stopwatch and recorded the total amount of time that out of character discussion happened and showed it to everyone as we were wrapping relatively early and they were whining about not getting anything done.

Really though that's only an issue with big groups of six or more. When I have a small group of three or four players and then myself, group focus is rarely if ever an issue.

[Sayt]

Honestly? I'd not mind tabletalk about the game, for a few reasons. 1) Characters are generally more competent at what they're supposed to be doing than their actual players, so a little running by committee isn't really that egregious. On the other hand, if they're communicating IC in ways they shouldn't be able to, call them on it in a polite, but questioning fashion. 2) At least they're talking about the game, and not other random stuff

[Story]

Also, it's a matter of preference. Some people like to play it more as a tactical wargame.

And as mentioned above, it's not even that unrealistic given the character-player skill gap.

[With a box]

Cast silence on the party?:smallsmile:

[Someonelse]

I'm just in the habit of automatically pointing out if the PCs are unable to communicate with each other and the players disregard what was just said. This only lasts until the party mage can cast telepathic bond and make it permanent on the entire party though.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Keep in mind, the characters are (presumably) professional/amateur adventures, used to risking it all on a daily basis.

Your players? Students, office workers, busboys?

What are your characters doing every night by the fire, if not discussing tactics, strategy, and how bad the rations suck?

Punishing your players for not having a perfect mindset for tactics at every given second seems a little mean. Hell, even in the real world, people in combat discuss tactics.

Go watch some footage taken by soldiers during combat, they talk a LOT. You kind of have to, to provide situational awareness. Not everybody sees everything around them, and it makes sense to listen to the more experienced members of your group.

Or do you prevent Bob the clerk from playing a Fighter, because he clearly doesn't know enough about formations and blacksmithing?

"Sorry Bob, but you have to play a day laborer. Or a scribe, you're good at taking dictation, right?"

[LordBlades]

As others have said, there is a huge difference between doing something for a living (which one's character does in regard to fighting, spellcasting, adventuring and generally living in a magical world) and pretending you do that for 4-6 hours a week. Talking and making plans helps offset that.

[RedMage125]

I agree with what's been said about how characters can have worked out strategies, but such things are boring to roleplay, so some strategizing at the table is fine.

However, I do have 2 things that I try to enforce regarding "table talk" in combat.

1) In-character knowledge about monster traits/weaknesses. This does not count monsters the players have faced before (I let any discussion of this be between players freely, as they may not remember something from 2 weeks ago, when to their character it was only hours earlier). But when a player makes a Knowledge check for Monser Knowledge and succeeds, any information to be passed to other players must be done so "in-character", verbally.

2) Metagame discussion of "hit points" is frowned upon. My players still do it a little, and I don't hammer down penalties, but I try and discourage it. To this end, I adopted the 4e status effect of "Bloodied" when a creature is at or below 50% hit points. I tell my players when a monster is bloodied, they are allowed to tell another play "I'm bloodied", or "I'll be okay for a bit longer", or even "I am in dire need of some healing". But "I have 27 out of 54 hit points" is the kind of thing that earns the Official DM Disapproving Frown. My players are usually on board with this.

Mind you, once out of combat, these "restrictions" go out the window. I don't care what level of detail they share for their out-of-combat healing. And I certainly think it's fair that any information regarding a defeated enemy (such as weaknesses) should be shared after the fight, just in case they encounter it again.

But my personal advice, OP, is to not be too heavy-handed with this. I impose these things, yes, but I discussed them with my players ahead of time, and they agreed to get on board. Point of fact, they liked the idea. Discuss whatever proposed changes you have with your players, and find something you all can live with. They might surprise you. You may have a party full of roleplayers who will willingly sacrifice the edge of metagame knowledge for the deeper immersion by having to act without it.


Or they may hate the whole idea. Either way, talk to them first.

[HighWater]

Compare professional adventuring with professional sports. They kill things for a few minutes a day (combats don't last very long). They talk about how to kill things the rest of the frikkin' time, discussing battleplans, ifs/thens, hand signals etc. etc.

You can, of course, insist that if your players actually want to have this kind of coordination, they have to make up a ton of battleplans, discuss them each character, and then rinse and repeat for every new trick or spell or level they gain... Also, make them enact in-character toiletbreaks.

That said, if they're talking tactics for half an hour for every single move, some people may start to grow bored, in which case the following applies:
You can, of course, call up some limit. Whenever a player is taking a bit too long talking to others about what they should do, you're free to say "I want an action now", to prevent boredom from setting in. Make this a circumstantial call though: whenever one or more of the other players (or you yourself) are becoming bored, it's time to tell people to hurry up and "decide already". Don't make a timer go off automatically in 6 seconds.

[Someonelse]

That said, if they're talking tactics for half an hour for every single move, some people may start to grow bored, in which case the following applies:
You can, of course, call up some limit. Whenever a player is taking a bit too long talking to others about what they should do, you're free to say "I want an action now", to prevent boredom from setting in. Make this a circumstantial call though: whenever one or more of the other players (or you yourself) are becoming bored, it's time to tell people to hurry up and "decide already". Don't make a timer go off automatically in 6 seconds.

I had a DM who would play the jepordy theme on his phone if you took too long. If you didn't move before the song ends you lose your turn.

[Composer99]

I concur that table talk does not, in and of itself, present a real problem. It's a cooperative game, and table talk is one of the ways the players can represent the characters cooperating.

Table talk is only a problem if it's getting boring (for you or any of the players), if it's taking a long time (even if it's not boring), if it's abusing the IC/OOC divide too much, or if one or some players are basically dictating the play of the others.

Most of these issues could, IMO, be solved by playing on a clock, which should keep things from going overlong and causing boredom, and should keep the "backseat tacticians" from going overboard. You and the players should agree on some kind of penalty for abusing the IC/OOC divide, and I believe suggestions have been given upthread.

[sideswipe]

the way i do it is that i give the players a small amount of time at the beginning to create a strategy. and then a few seconds on each turn for suggestions. but if i feel the debate is too long then i say "decide or skip your turn". its fine for players to collaborate out of character, but if each turn is 3-4 mins long it will take forever to do one round.

[hymer]

Table talk is only a problem if it's getting boring (for you or any of the players), if it's taking a long time (even if it's not boring), if it's abusing the IC/OOC divide too much, or if one or some players are basically dictating the play of the others.

I'll add something to the list of possible problems: Narrative combat works much better when you're being swift and spontaneous. If each description is too far from its fellows, the narrative doesn't hold up tension.

[Trundlebug]

Huh. I'm pretty laid back DM open to all styles of playing but apparently this is an area where my ways diverge from those in this thread.

OOC metagaming is seriously frowned upon at my tabl which is exactly what the OP is complaining about. You want to meta? Go play a video game. Simply tell them not to. If they continue you have a disrespect for the DM problem. In that case you say

"OK this campaign is on hiatus, next person's turn to DM."

I've found by sharing the DM chair promotes respect for the work and time a DM spends on the campaign and get's players to shut up and listen because frankly they are lazy and don't want to DM.

If no one steps up? No game. A competent DM can always find players. Go form a backup group. Either your players will want to play and suck it up or they didn't want to play that much in the first place and problem solved.

[Chester]

If it's taking waaaayyyy too long, you could always say, "Guys, I'm giving you one more minute to discuss, then we roll initiative."

Still, it's part of the game, so don't penalize them too much. I'd let them have their conversation.

[Stuvius]

I appreciate everyone’s input. I want to be clear here. I really enjoy gaming and DMing and I certainly am not out to deter fun or socialization at all. I just felt that in several instances it really prolonged combat. I only mentioned the penalty because I had read it as an idea in other forums and blogs. My entire goal is for my players to have fun. I feel as if I am coming out looking like a heavy handed dictator. That is not the case at all. I have never issued penalties or considered it until I came across the idea. There were many good ideas presented in this thread that will allow me to prevent the slowing of combats while not antagonizing my players. Thanks again.:smallsmile:

[winter92]

An interesting compromise that's in play at my table: you can only talk tactics on your turn, but unless it's some detailed plan the DM will let it slide as OOC. (That is, "Searing light is great on these guys!" is considered OOC, but "Don't move to flank him, I'm dropping a summon there on my round!" has to be said IC.)

The result is that players who are new/inexperienced can get tips on what's possible/useful in order to ensure that they stay relevant, but we never break order and bog down combat with tactics debates because "conversation" demands rounds to complete.

As for enforcement, there isn't a real consequence. If someone breaks the rule a bit it slides, if it gets broken a lot or you try to convey 45 seconds of planning in one round the DM will just cut you off and remind you of the rule. If you convey something super specific OOC it probably gets ruled to be IC, and beyond that everyone just obeys the rule at the DM's request.