Play by committee and when it's ok

[DukeGurren]

OK, so I've been having this issue where one guy in my regular group (whether he's a GM or a Player) whom continues to enforce his own views (often influenced by random reading on the internet as opposed to multiple source comparisons) and the one that is currently problematic is people "Playing by committee" which in this case means conversing with your group, usually during a battle, about how they should use their abilities in a strategic manner.

On the one hand, enforcing to keep this from happening can prevent meta knowledge from affecting the players, and it can help play along. However, there are many times when players don't remember each others abilities off the top of their heads in order to synergies on the fly or some players simply aren't exactly masters of the game and thus need a little nudging or so in a good direction and in addition, can keep other players from becoming bored and stop paying attention to what's happening and thus losing even more of a grip on the situation, especially in bigger groups.

So I pose this question: When is it OK to "Play by committee" and when is it NOT OK.

As usual, please be respectful and thank you for your responses.

[oxybe]

We sit down to play D&D maybe once a week for a few hours.

This is in stark contrast to our characters who likely live and travel together for long periods of time, and probably also train together since "fighting [thing that actively wants to kill you with sharp bits]" is part of their job description and you want to know what your buddies can do to help you not get skewered by the Cultists of P'hep-chi.

Again, in contrast to my job which is "answer phone and talk to people who may be a bit rude if they're having an off day" and i don't work or hang out with my group outside of when we play D&D.

Unless they're taking an extremely long time discussing the finer points mid combat, a bit of group think doesn't bother me.

[Geddy2112]

It is generally pretty obvious when players are blatantly meta gaming vs playing by committee. As a DM, unless players are shamelessly metagaming, I don't mind it so long as it does not take too much time. Most ttRPGS have some tactical aspects to combats, and all ttRPGS are cooperative games. A lot of people like these aspects(I do as a player and DM) so I generally encourage it.

When it comes to an encounter, all classes bring different strengths and weaknesses, and particularly for those the party can plan for, they should. In combat it makes sense to discuss the rough points of "you are a fragile caster, and this thing is handing out whoopass on a stick. Stay back" or "these are clearly undead, maybe we should wait for the cleric to nuke them with channeling" because unless the characters are idiots, they would reasonably know to do this. We do forget, but our characters would reasonably know and have talked about this.

I bang the gavel when the Big Stupid Fighter starts telling the party the mechanical stats of what is likely a troll, and instructs the party sorcerer to spam acid splash to stop the regeneration.

[Knaight]

I generally have no issue with playing by committee. However, I do have an issue with the potential failure states of playing by committee, one of which has cropped up in the post. There's the failure state where it becomes one person directing all action, there's the failure state where nothing happens because the group is collectively having analysis paralysis, and there's the failure state that happens when people start getting mad because parts of the committee aren't going with the general action plan.

That first failure state sounds like it fits the current conditions fairly well, and in my experience it has a tendency to segue into the third (where "mad" is more like "mildly irritating and irritable").

[JBPuffin]

In groups with equal experience among players, play-by-committee should be light, but effective. After all, if everyone knows the general capabilities of everyone else's characters, it only takes a few seconds to remind someone they've missed something/remind them they have a specific ability which works really well with another player's.

In groups with a lot of new players (mine, for example), play-by-committee is mostly of the "Don't forget you can do this" sort, and is more helpful as it provides a second line of assistance most new players need, especially those who aren't natural tacticians. We don't do this quite often enough, and every session one of us forgets something we could've done in a given situation (DM and myself included), but it's nigh-constant out of combat, which is one of this group's most interesting quirks. Our cleric (the third player who always attends, alongside DM and myself) does their best to fully grasp every situation, account for every eventuality, and make sure every detail is laid out; the rest of us have latched on to that style, and one fight with some goblins began some twenty minutes before initiative was rolled as a result b/c we planned out our counter-ambush down to a T.

[Tanarii]

My favorite way to play is anything the players say during combat to each other, the enemies just overheard. More or less, not specific mechanical terms obviously, but the general gist of it. That stops unnecessary table chatter during combat, and also encourages players to talk about tactics before engaged in a life or death struggle. As well as massively speeding up combat and generally increasing player engagement in the game. Combat speed, engagement, verisimilitude ... it's hard to beat that. Definitely superior to playing combat as Chess.

Otoh very few things are more boring than another player dithering on their turn. That's how the other players check out. If the DM isn't prepared to shut this down by skipping their turn (the character just stands there defending), then the next best thing can be the other players to giving suggestions. In that case, it's quite helpful to keep the game moving. With newer players especially.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

As long as they don't take the p***, there's no problem with players having a little tactical discussion during combat. When I'm GMing, if I see it getting out of hand I say "You don't have time for this conversation."

But it can be helpful, especially when you have players with different level of gaming experience.

[Cozzer]

As okybe said, as long as it's players "stopping time" to remind themselves or each other of things the characters would just know, or would reasonably be part of their standard tactics, it's ok.

If it's something the characters would need to talk about, they're limited to what their character would be able to express in a short yell ("Jack, you take the wizard!", "Wait for my spell before attacking!").

The players can take more time ("Wait, how many squares are there between me and the enemy? Crap, my movement speed is not enough"), while the character (an experienced adventurer) would simply realize at a glance that he can't sprint and attack the enemy before the enemy gets the first strike, for example.

[Glorthindel]

There is definitely a line here where some stuff is perfectly fine, while others not.

I am perfectly ok with players talking tactics - I work on the assumption that these characters are side-by-side, day-by-day; although a lot of RP interaction goes on, you don't cover every minute of the long journeys on the road, evenings in a tavern, nights sat around a camp-fire, or days in town between adventures. In those "off-screen" hours, its assumed the characters will be talking over things that have happened in recent fights, training and sparring with one another, and devising tactics for dealing with unusual situations. Therefore, when a situation comes up in a "live" combat, I have no problem with the players discussing how to handle such a situation (effecively "cutting back" to that un-covered discussion they had about a similar situation one evening previous). When dealing with a common-use spell, or normal combat situation, it is perfectly fine for the party to discuss how they would approach this situation, however, in situations where arguably a party is running into a problem for the first time, it is fair to stop any discussion, or force it to be in-character (so the enemy can hear it as well). An example of this would be unusual monster abilities/effects. But how to handle basic magical effects (particularly spells the characters themselves own) would fall into the category of things the party would have discussed.

Where it goes wrong is where one player turns the other characters into an extension of himself. For example, its perfectly fine to say "we could do with a couple of ropes, does anyone want to get these", and also to check people haven't forgotten basics "Ranger, have you got enough arrows? We are likely to be out in the wilderness for 2 weeks, has everyone got enough rations for that length of time?", but its not fine to micromanage every item on their inventory, and basically use their money as an extension of there own.

[Darth Ultron]

Is the issue just players and characters talking? So what? Let them talk.

During a battle, or any other ''timed'' gameplay, they can only talk ''a little bit'' and only if they are close together and such. This is why most games have something like a DM, who can say ''your character Zim can't talk to Bob's character Olof as he is 100 feet away and underwater."

In my game, I'm very hardcore about ''stopping the game to talk during timed actions'' and I'll out right zap the character (''As Zim stands there talking and ignores the lich, the lich casts a Death Bolt on Zim and your Bag of Holding distingrates!"). It is great and it works beautifully, players either stop talking so much during timed actions or leave the game, so it's win win. I don't recommend my way, but it does all ways work.

Outside of any timed actions, I let the players talk endlessly.

Depending on what your talking about for ''meta knowledge'', I let my players ''know'' whatever they know, and their characters know what they know...except for game rule details. I'm fine with character Dom the Farmer knowing about every core spell, but not him saying ''fireball does 1d6 damage per level''. And I'm fine with a player knowing all the setting world details they want to know.

If you have more casual gamers they simply won't have the will to know and run a complex character. So if Terry zooms in on his motorcycle once a month to play the game and has a Fighter/Warblade/Psion/Wizard/Cloistered Cleric of Ka/Bone Knight of Ill Omen, and he has not touched a D&D book since 1014 when he watched someone else make the character....well, you can't expect him to be an amazing optimized tactical player.

So sure the complicated character is ''more fun'' or whatever, but if you can get them to make a bit more simple character, things might work out much better.

Mostly this is just a real life experience issue. You need the players to get more experience. So more games is all ways an option. You might also want to do teaching games.

[Socratov]

personally I find the line to be between a friendly reminder or call for action ("hey jack, can't you, you know, screw over those goblins over there with a fireball? As in right the expletive now, please?!") and taking away player agency ("You don't wanna do that, do this instead.." *proceeds to carry out actions and barely allows Jack's player to roll the dice for throwing a fireball*). Helping sure. Taking over, no way!

[FreddyNoNose]

My favorite way to play is anything the players say during combat to each other, the enemies just overheard. More or less, not specific mechanical terms obviously, but the general gist of it. That stops unnecessary table chatter during combat, and also encourages players to talk about tactics before engaged in a life or death struggle. As well as massively speeding up combat and generally increasing player engagement in the game. Combat speed, engagement, verisimilitude ... it's hard to beat that. Definitely superior to playing combat as Chess.

Otoh very few things are more boring than another player dithering on their turn. That's how the other players check out. If the DM isn't prepared to shut this down by skipping their turn (the character just stands there defending), then the next best thing can be the other players to giving suggestions. In that case, it's quite helpful to keep the game moving. With newer players especially.

You got 6 seconds or so to state what you character is trying to do in the middle of combat. If you can't figure it out, you character doesn't do anything.

[Tanarii]

You got 6 seconds or so to state what you character is trying to do in the middle of combat. If you can't figure it out, you character doesn't do anything.

I'm generally on board with that, especially with players of casters, who will often spend too long reviewing their spell list for the optimal spell.

But with newer players, IMO it's usually worth some leeway. They're often already overwhelmed by the options, even for classes that seem simple to those with experience.

[Knaight]

I'm generally on board with that, especially with players of casters, who will often spend too long reviewing their spell list for the optimal spell.

But with newer players, IMO it's usually worth some leeway. They're often already overwhelmed by the options, even for classes that seem simple to those with experience.

It can also work to restrict the general course of action to a short time while leaving more time to translate in mechanics. "I'm running over to stab that guy" can be said quickly, while translating that into "I'm using step of the water to cross the pond to get in range, swapping a die into my river, and then using the new set for falling dragon strike" (to use an approximate example from Legends of the Wulin, although I just made up the individual move names instead of looking them up) can take a bit longer.

[Tinkerer]

For the newer players I often like helping them make a flowchart. Not that they are going to use it or even follow it's advice but so that they know the difference between their abilities. It also really helps them to overcome the fallacy of having specialized characters overspecializing. If you have three abilities which all do the exact same thing there is no reason to have taken all of them. Also I train them that if they have no idea what action to take then they can simply say delay and act later in that round.

[Faily]

For combat, when I GM, I roll with:
1. Pay attention to the combat (don't play on your phone, exception made for those using apps to check rules and relevant game-text). If everyone is aware of what is going on (using maps and minis help a bunch too), combat runs a lot smoother instead of being interrupted with "Bob, it's your turn" "Oh right. What's going on?" " :smallannoyed: ".

2. While paying attention to the combat, think of what you're going to do. Feel free to speak with the other players if you're uncertain about something (do you remember the area-size on Web? how should I angle my Burning Hands?), or ask me, the GM, when it is your turn, as I tend to prefer to keep focused myself during combat and questions from three different angles is just stressful.

In general, I don't mind people talking some between themselves OOC in combat, considering that the PCs could have had time to learn eachother's tactics a little better than the players have (gotta occupy their time somehow while travelling, after all).

As a player, I try to make my decision of what I will do on my turn while I wait for it to come. Sometimes that does require being on my phone to read up on spell descriptions or class abilities, but I do my best in paying attention to what is going on.

---

Outside of combat, as a player and a GM, it really depends on the situation. If someone is playing the Party Face is completely stuck in what to say in the diplomatic scenario, there's nothing wrong with some pointers from the rest of the group (GM included), since this is a cooperative hobby after all. Though in some instances, asking for people to roleplay things out instead of just saying "and then I share the info" makes for much more interesting stories, IME. Not to mention if the party can only communicate to eachother with gestures and miming... got some funny moments from that which still live on in infamy many years later (BWR's group had a pretty funny one).

[FreddyNoNose]

I'm generally on board with that, especially with players of casters, who will often spend too long reviewing their spell list for the optimal spell.

But with newer players, IMO it's usually worth some leeway. They're often already overwhelmed by the options, even for classes that seem simple to those with experience.

There is the normal situation and then the exception situation. A new player would be the exception situation. Give them a game session to pick it up.

However, I in now way shape or form believe that a committee deciding each characters action is role playing. It likely falls under that narrative style which is really just written a story and acting as if it is role playing.

[Tanarii]

It can also work to restrict the general course of action to a short time while leaving more time to translate in mechanics. "I'm running over to stab that guy" can be said quickly, while translating that into "I'm using step of the water to cross the pond to get in range, swapping a die into my river, and then using the new set for falling dragon strike" (to use an approximate example from Legends of the Wulin, although I just made up the individual move names instead of looking them up) can take a bit longer.Right. To be clearer, I'm on board with 6 seconds to decide what you're going to do, and begin to communicate it. Although I actually prefer if players immediately start when the torch is passed to them. Players should be listening to events unfold, and (if there's a visual component) watching it as well. Combat is stressful. As far as I'm concerned, there's no particular reason a player should be given time to think instead of having to make snap (and quite possibly panicky or bad) decisions about what they're going to do.

If players want to plan tactics in advance, plan them in advance. If you're failing to do that, or doing a pick-up group, then you'll probably end up playing a tactical mess. That's fine by me.


There is the normal situation and then the exception situation. A new player would be the exception situation. Give them a game session to pick it up.No way one session is enough. New players take multiple sessions before they get the hang of things, for almost all TRPGs. That's why I'm fine with someone reminding them of abilities or something in the mean-time. Unless they're supposed to be playing a fresh-out-of-bootcamp newbie who's going to end up bleeding out on the battlefield. In that case, yeah, one game session sounds about right. :smalltongue: (On that note, this is why brand new players probably should play an 16-19 year old freshly trained character. I loved that being the default starting age for human fighters in AD&D 1e, which was also the class I'd recommend for new players.)


However, I in now way shape or form believe that a committee deciding each characters action is role playing. It likely falls under that narrative style which is really just written a story and acting as if it is role playing.For sure. There's a difference between making decisions for your character, and making decisions for the outcome of a battle mini-game or story. ie for the team result.

[Max_Killjoy]

I have no problem with a reasonable amount of quick "table talk" between players, as long as their characters could conceivably communicate, because it can make the game more fun and allows the characters to cooperate.

Long drawn out tactical debates will get cut off by enemies jumping the initiative que, which tends to bring discussionto an end quickly.

[Psyren]

Generally our groups just do quick sentences. Stuff like "I can take care of their caster on my turn" or "I'm hurting pretty bad" without elaborating. Stuff that, even if the GM rules it's in character and the enemies overhear it, isn't going to tip our entire hand to them.

At higher levels though, we generally try to get telepathy as soon as possible, e.g. Permanency + Telepathic Bond on everyone, so that we can strategize mid-fight more easily. The GM can of course still take advantage of this if the foe is capable of mental eavesdropping.

[flond]

There is the normal situation and then the exception situation. A new player would be the exception situation. Give them a game session to pick it up.

However, I in now way shape or form believe that a committee deciding each characters action is role playing. It likely falls under that narrative style which is really just written a story and acting as if it is role playing.

Role playing is making decisions for a character so setting the blather about character-playing (i.e. the style of roleplaying monomonically focused on immersion), aside, consider that play by committee is a way to make up for the shortcomings of the medium. The lack of bandwidth of experience, and training, and knowing that those gestures mean a fireball is going to happen. (And remember, initiative is an artifice in and of itself! Actions don't happen in neatly segmented lines!)

Basically, what I'm saying is if you want people to take six seconds to make up their minds, strap on your boffer and go outside!

[FreddyNoNose]

Role playing is making decisions for a character so setting the blather about character-playing (i.e. the style of roleplaying monomonically focused on immersion), aside, consider that play by committee is a way to make up for the shortcomings of the medium. The lack of bandwidth of experience, and training, and knowing that those gestures mean a fireball is going to happen. (And remember, initiative is an artifice in and of itself! Actions don't happen in neatly segmented lines!)

Basically, what I'm saying is if you want people to take six seconds to make up their minds, strap on your boffer and go outside!

Play by committee is a step backwards. I don't even think it will be considered role playing. Hey, you kids have your new style of play. If you are narrative you are writing a story instead of role playing.

[flond]

Play by committee is a step backwards. I don't even think it will be considered role playing. Hey, you kids have your new style of play. If you are narrative you are writing a story instead of role playing.

Tell that to the freeform roleplayers. By and large it looks a lot like narr play, just without mechanics. And based on size it's by far the dominant form. :P Our tiny offshoot of wargames is just that. (Hence why I try to encourage "Character playing" for that subset :) )

[Tanarii]

Tell that to the freeform roleplayers. By and large it looks a lot like narr play, just without mechanics. And based on size it's by far the dominant form. :P Our tiny offshoot of wargames is just that. (Hence why I try to encourage "Character playing" for that subset :) )
Do free form roleplayers decide what their character does, with a DM adjudicating (without dice) what the outcome is?

Or do they decide the outcomes for their character too? On what do they base the outcomes? What's best for the story/plot?

Or do they decide outcomes for each other's characters / NPCs? Based on what? What's best for the story/plot?

Despite what I've said before in other threads, technically both the latter would be roleplaying. It's just the role you're playing is different. You're just not playing the role of a character. You're playing the role of a party when you play be committee (the extreme version), or you're playing story/plot if you're making decisions based on those.

[Thrudd]

In D&D, I accept and encourage the committee talk, but give a specific timeframe during which it should happen to keep it limited. At the beginning of an encounter, the group has a few minutes, maybe five minutes max, to look over the battlefield and talk tactics and strategy and remind each other of abilities, etc. When that time is up and initiative is rolled, each player has ten seconds to declare their actions and any tactical talk should be limited to in-character and not take longer than ten seconds.

I want the players to coordinate and cooperate and think strategically, but I also want to encourage them to stay in the moment and to keep combats moving in as natural a way as possible (and not taking up too much game time). A dedicated and limited time specifically for the committee I think is a good way to compromise and get the best of both goals.

[Anxe]

We sit down to play D&D maybe once a week for a few hours.

This is in stark contrast to our characters who likely live and travel together for long periods of time, and probably also train together since "fighting [thing that actively wants to kill you with sharp bits]" is part of their job description and you want to know what your buddies can do to help you not get skewered by the Cultists of P'hep-chi.

This is pretty much my exact opinion on this topic. The PCs train together all the time and have undoubtedly developed specific battle tactics for certain situations ahead of time. The players haven't done that, but the PCs would have. I allow playing by committee as a substitute. There is a limit to how long I let the players talk about what their characters will do, but generally I allow it.

One specific case that comes to mind was when two PCs performed a human catapult maneuver in the middle of combat. The dragon was flying above and the large-size Crusader assisted the medium-size Abjurant Champion's jump check by launching him with one of his arms. Got just in range of the dragon and was able to attack. They thought of it on the fly and there's no way that move would work without practice. But their characters HAD practiced. It just happened "off-camera."

[Tanarii]

The PCs train together all the time and have undoubtedly developed specific battle tactics for certain situations ahead of time. The players haven't done that, but the PCs would have. Why?

First of all, why are we assuming the PCs have done this? That sounds like an incredibly campaign dependent assumption. Are they a team or mercs or something? Best friends that have adventured together as friends for years in their backstory?

Second of all, in that case why haven't the players discussed specific battle tactics together for certain situations ahead of time?

If this is a team of adventurers that has come together and stuck together through multiple sessions, this stuff should develop naturally as a consequence. They'll start off uncoordinated, and as they discuss tactics and actually get to know how each other work through session time, it'll come. I don't see the need to give the players a special boost. Especially when it comes at the cost of pacing, mood, and time. The absolutely worst thing for verisimilitude in TRPG combat is not-intense slow combat.

Same reason you shouldn't take a long time setting up the battlefield when combat suddenly erupts. I liked battlemat play, but setting it all up for small skirmishes absolutely destroys tension. Go straight to combat as fast as possible.

[Anxe]

Why?

First of all, why are we assuming the PCs have done this? That sounds like an incredibly campaign dependent assumption. Are they a team or mercs or something? Best friends that have adventured together as friends for years in their backstory?

Second of all, in that case why haven't the players discussed specific battle tactics together for certain situations ahead of time?

If this is a team of adventurers that has come together and stuck together through multiple sessions, this stuff should develop naturally as a consequence. They'll start off uncoordinated, and as they discuss tactics and actually get to know how each other work through session time, it'll come. I don't see the need to give the players a special boost. Especially when it comes at the cost of pacing, mood, and time. The absolutely worst thing for verisimilitude in TRPG combat is not-intense slow combat.

Same reason you shouldn't take a long time setting up the battlefield when combat suddenly erupts. I liked battlemat play, but setting it all up for small skirmishes absolutely destroys tension. Go straight to combat as fast as possible.

It is campaign dependent, that's true. I've been running the same campaign for nearly ten years now. I've forgotten what I did before then.

EDIT: For my players, sometimes they do discuss tactics beforehand, but we only game for about 4-6 hours every month. The PCs live together and do adventuring stuff every day. If we hung out that much as players, I'd probably have a different position on how I handle play by committee.

[Tanarii]

It is campaign dependent, that's true. I've been running the same campaign for nearly ten years now. I've forgotten what I did before then.

EDIT: For my players, sometimes they do discuss tactics beforehand, but we only game for about 4-6 hours every month. The PCs live together and do adventuring stuff every day. If we hung out that much as players, I'd probably have a different position on how I handle play by committee.
Okay so yeah Pcs living together is a campaign dependent situation all right. I can see that under those circumstances. Especially if there is also lots of down time in game between sessions.

[flond]

Do free form roleplayers decide what their character does, with a DM adjudicating (without dice) what the outcome is?

Or do they decide the outcomes for their character too? On what do they base the outcomes? What's best for the story/plot?

Or do they decide outcomes for each other's characters / NPCs? Based on what? What's best for the story/plot?

Despite what I've said before in other threads, technically both the latter would be roleplaying. It's just the role you're playing is different. You're just not playing the role of a character. You're playing the role of a party when you play be committee (the extreme version), or you're playing story/plot if you're making decisions based on those.

(Two is common. I've heard of one, but it's rarer, and three is less common but a thing. And usually a mixture of "Best for story/plot" and "Reasonableness")

[Quertus]

When is it ok? When people are ok with it.

When is it not ok? When people are not ok with it.

This goes both for playing by committee, and not playing by committee.

Both have their fail states. It is the fail states that are unacceptable - there is nothing inherently bad to either form of play.

Personally, as a GM, I'm likely to look favorably on the behavior as helpful to both engagement and learning, but will likely come down hard on, "let them play their character" if someone seems uncomfortable with the play by committee style. And I love having monsters listen in on in-character conversations. :smallwink:

As a player, despite my war gamer roots, I'm too focused on the roleplay to care much one way or the other, beyond a) having my character do what is in character over what is optimal; b) generally knowing a better answer than "the committee", anyway, although c) I do chafe at the notion of the entire party being nothing more than hive mind spare bodies for one player.

And, as much as I think roleplay suffers during "tactics by committee", I have to say, one of my favorite groups played a "light touch" version of "role-playing by committee". "The version of your character, as it exists in my head, would have done something different - can you explain why you had your character do what he did?" That's the only rule I've ever seen in a game actually benefit role-playing.


I bang the gavel when the Big Stupid Fighter starts telling the party the mechanical stats of what is likely a troll, and instructs the party sorcerer to spam acid splash to stop the regeneration.

I once played the "big stupid priest", and effectively sat out for half a session that was literally a strategy session w/ the king's army. More games should have sessions like this. I'd love to have such a session when I'm playing a character who can actually participate.


Though in some instances, asking for people to roleplay things out instead of just saying "and then I share the info" makes for much more interesting stories, IME. Not to mention if the party can only communicate to eachother with gestures and miming... got some funny moments from that which still live on in infamy many years later (BWR's group had a pretty funny one).

This is an interesting point - the stories and experiences we come away with should potentially influence this decision.


I have no problem with a reasonable amount of quick "table talk" between players, as long as their characters could conceivably communicate, because it can make the game more fun and allows the characters to cooperate.

Long drawn out tactical debates will get cut off by enemies jumping the initiative que, which tends to bring discussionto an end quickly.

Wow, I hadn't judged you to be the type. Perhaps I should have read more into how terse your replies usually are.

So... why? What is your reason for this behavior?

[Max_Killjoy]

Wow, I hadn't judged you to be the type. Perhaps I should have read more into how terse your replies usually are.

So... why? What is your reason for this behavior?


It's something of an immersion thing -- in a real melee, you don't get 5 minutes of discussion between sword-blows to debate the best group synergy of powers or give each other advice on your next attack.