Players Talking During Combat

[Pex]

Didn't want to side track the rude/house rule thread.

The subject came up of players talking strategy during combat slowing the game down. The question is how much talking do you allow?

I'm on the fence on this at the moment. I can see the DM's view that you can't have a lengthy conversation while fighting. It doesn't make sense as each round is only 6 seconds. Players should know what to do, and it does lengthen real world play time which can be a problem. However, from the players' perspective it's not fair if they can't talk. The bad guys don't have a strategy problem because they all work together at the speed of thought. The DM controls them all, so he knows what each bad guy will do when and why for tactical advantage. Players can't. They have to talk to communicate tactical strategy as the combat happens. If they're to use teamwork they need to tell each other what needs to be done.

[Man_Over_Game]

Didn't want to side track the rude/house rule thread.

The subject came up of players talking strategy during combat slowing the game down. The question is how much talking do you allow?

I'm on the fence on this at the moment. I can see the DM's view that you can't have a lengthy conversation while fighting. It doesn't make sense as each round is only 6 seconds. Players should know what to do, and it does lengthen real world play time which can be a problem. However, from the players' perspective it's not fair if they can't talk. The bad guys don't have a strategy problem because they all work together at the speed of thought. The DM controls them all, so he knows what each bad guy will do when and why for tactical advantage. Players can't. They have to talk to communicate tactical strategy as the combat happens. If they're to use teamwork they need to tell each other what needs to be done.

Sometimes, a DM is like a parent, where the players are children. It's up to the parent to know what's best for the child, even when the children disagree. In this case, the players want to force a scenario where things always end up in their favor, and you have to interfere with that to ensure that they continue to adapt, learn, and get better. Chaos often adds an element of drama and suspense in combat. Tactical advantages are often repeatable, to the point where they become habit, which makes things less lethal, and inevitably less suspenseful.

Are you playing Chess, or are you playing a Role?

Naturally, players (all people, really) want to win. That doesn't mean that winning should come easily, or that they should work according to plan.




Or, let's take it from another perspective. Druid is considering casting either Heat Metal or Moonbeam, but he's worried that the Moonbeam is going to interfere with whatever the Barbarian's got planned, but it WOULD mean the enemies are bottlenecked into a bad position. And the Druid just decides to wing it and throw the Moonbeam out there.
In the worst-case scenario, the Barbarian can't melee an enemy from the main group without getting hurt. Does that stop him? Does he just make a thrown attack? Does he decide to charge an enemy that's out of position so that he can still make a melee attack? Does he take the Ready Action?
Consider all of those questions. Is the Barbarian not playing the game? Rather, I'd say that the Druid's complication made MORE of the game. Now the Barbarian has a plethora of decisions to make that he wouldn't have had to do if the Druid and him spent 5 minutes to pause combat for a detailed strategy.

Just because things aren't perfect doesn't mean that things aren't fun. If anything, chaos provides more fun than perfection. If people want pristine combat scenarios, 4e is perfect for that.



************************

A simple solution I recommend is telling the player that, after taking too much time on their turn, they need to take their Action, or it will be used up to Dodge. Tell them the consequence of their action, and allow them to give you permission to punish them should they ignore it. There is more than just those two at the table, and "in the middle of combat" isn't the best time for a conversation.

[Zetakya]

Anything the players discuss, the NPCs hear and can react to/counter.

[Jamesps]

Anything the players discuss, the NPCs hear and can react to/counter.

This is how I rule it. I try to make the monsters discuss their strategy out loud from time to time as well to make it even.

I also limit length of discussions so the game doesn't drag on.

[False God]

All conversation is assumed to be in character unless a player holds an "L" up to their forehead (ya know, like people used to use to call someone a loser). It works surprisingly well both in keeping players from having a lot of OOC chatter and to gives me, the DM, a visual queue on what is and isn't being said in character.

[Waazraath]

Didn't want to side track the rude/house rule thread.

The subject came up of players talking strategy during combat slowing the game down. The question is how much talking do you allow?

I'm on the fence on this at the moment. I can see the DM's view that you can't have a lengthy conversation while fighting. It doesn't make sense as each round is only 6 seconds. Players should know what to do, and it does lengthen real world play time which can be a problem. However, from the players' perspective it's not fair if they can't talk. The bad guys don't have a strategy problem because they all work together at the speed of thought. The DM controls them all, so he knows what each bad guy will do when and why for tactical advantage. Players can't. They have to talk to communicate tactical strategy as the combat happens. If they're to use teamwork they need to tell each other what needs to be done.

For the reasons you give, I do allow it. It really isn't that wild that this party of hardcore adventurers who travel the world together and put their life on the line, being totally dependent on each other, spend there "off screen" time to discuss tactics and, you known, learning how each of them fights and what strong points are. Giving them a few moments to consult, to align tactics, helps them being heroes doing heroic things, instead of being a bunch of incompetents who don't work together, or worse, are hindering each other.

Main guideline: it shouldn't distract from the fun. In my experience, a few words, sentences "should I go for A or B" and then some reactions is good, thinking ahead 5 rounds and spending 3 minutes doing it isn't. But ymmv.

[Scripten]

I don't normally push for my players to decide on their actions in 6 seconds, for a multitude of reasons, and I generally let them take their time to discuss what they're doing. Allowing them to work together keeps interest high even when it's not your turn. I also like to shake battles up with new developments that edge toward puzzle gaming aspects, so some discussion is not only warranted by desirable for me as the one running the game.

The only exception is that if the player wants their words to have mechanical impact, then they will spend their action talking. Usually that offer gets them to make up their minds pretty fast.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't usually care too much, unless one or both of the following is true:

1) a player is trying to tell another player how to play and the receiver hasn't asked for it. That's a hard no for me--play your own character and let others make their choices. If asked for advice, be succinct.
2) players are dithering and wasting tons of time. If it goes more than about 30 seconds, I'll stop them and ask for an action or they'll just Dodge instead. Keeping the game moving is a high priority. Call it ADD, but when one person's turn goes on too long, everyone else starts tuning out.

A lot of this, I think comes from people who are afraid of acting sub-optimally. I listened to an interview with JC about Bonus actions, and one thing he said was that they didn't want people to dither or worry about not getting to use all their actions all the time, in large part because it slows down the game for everyone. I don't run "walk the wire" difficulties anyway--a quick, sub-optimal action that's in-character is much more useful than several minutes trying for the optimal action. This is why I frown on mass minion-mancy as well--it balloons turns out unreasonably.

Another group want to play chess and use other people's characters as their pieces. And that annoys me and stomps all over the other players' agency.

[Laserlight]

This may be a crazy idea, but how about working out your tactics out of combat?

Back when I was playing in a superhero game, my buddy and I decided that if either of us yelled "Option!", then my super fast martial artist would grab the baddie and hold him in place, then my buddy would launch a haymaker and be pretty sure it would actually hit (and drive the baddie ten feet into the ground).

When I started playing a wizard, I told the group "If you move to a place where a fireball ought to go, I'm going to assume that you're okay with being in a fireball." Never had a problem with it after that.

The military has battle drills for situations like Attack, Clear a Room, Respond to Ambush, and a few more. It shouldn't be too hard to categorize most encounters and work out "Okay, the ranger or warlock takes cover and shoots at enemy casters. The fighter and barbarian move into contact. Tempest cleric moves in and uses an AoE spell."

[Tawmis]

Didn't want to side track the rude/house rule thread.
The subject came up of players talking strategy during combat slowing the game down. The question is how much talking do you allow?


I think a few factors are there to be considered...


How new are they to D&D?
How new are they to the class they're playing?
Is anyone at the table wishing the game would go on?


So right now - I am DMing for people who are only about a year into D&D (which is about 10 games, we play once a month). I allow them time to hammer out what to try and do during combat, typically, because a lot of them are still getting used to what their characters can do (what skills or spells do what). As the game progresses, I've been narrowing that time down a little. I want them to not rely on "Should I do this or this?" and ask everyone at the table. I'd like them to eventually become confident in their characters.

Now for experienced players, I think there should be a small window - give them a minute to discuss it. And then move on. If they don't know what they want in that minute's time, initiative continues to the next person. After all, during combat - you don't have time to really say, "Well, I am going to do this. That will give you cover. And you will be able to attack from here. Then the Cleric can move in touch the fighter and heal them. That's going to give the barbarian a chance to swing from behind."

That's too much. I'd allow for them yelling in character, "Marsius! I am going to cast magic missile at the foul demon! Take to the shadows and do what you do best, to this foul beast!"

[zinycor]

On my game we rule it so, before initiative is rolled, there are long chats, where everyone talks about their plans and perspectives, and after a seemed :( never ending talk (often interrupted by Monty python references) an agreement is reached, and then initiative is rolled.
After that the game starts, every plan is discarded, and we try to limit turns to 2 minutes at most.

This works well for us, sometimes, on big battles, a second round of useless planning is required, but that's an exception that only happens on very big battles with unexpected twist and turns.

[OverLordOcelot]

Adventurers are typically professional combatants who have incredible talent, learning, and/or training and who spend their lives fighting in dangerous situations. For a long standing party, they've often spent a long time continuously in each other's company either travelling or resting between adventures. Players are typically people who show up occasionally (once per week or month is typical) for a few hours at a time for a game and have job, education, and family obligations that take up much more of their mental effort than an RPG. The characters should have a catalog of knowledge of things like common abilities and scenarios and how different people's abilities fit in, and in most cases have at a minimum several times the duration of a play session to discuss their abilities and general tactics. Long standing groups would be doing combat drills together and coming up with standard plans for situations, as well as coming up with short hand and coded signals for common situations. It's silly to limit adventurers to just what coordination the players have done, as the players aren't making a full-time job of the campaign and aren't risking their lives (which would motivate a lot of PC learning). It's fine if PCs don't have magical communication that they have to say specific things like 'avoid the green tiles', but an awful lot of table communication is stuff that the characters would have handled well beforehand.

For a real-world example, if I take 5 'regular Joes', give them paintball guns and gear, and drop them into a fake 'building' to clear, they're going to stumble and have a hard time of it, and have to discuss and figure out most tactics out loud as they go. If I take 5 SWAT team members from different cities, they will understand a lot of tactics off the bad, and will coordinate off the bat with hand signals and brief spoken words - none of them will need to explain what the danger radius is on a flash-bang. If I take 5 members of a SEAL team, they're going to have a command structure, premade plans for most situations, a lot of shorthand to communicate things that aren't on a plan, and will often know each other well enough to read a plan out of someone starting to move. The players are generally much more like the regular Joes, but the characters are more like the randomly assembled SWAT team or close knit elite strike team, and enforcing 'if you coordinate a plan, you have to do it in six seconds and the enemy can hear you' is unreasonably hampering the PCs on the basis that this is just a game for the players.

In addition, a lot of communication is 'world state' information that people in a real situation would take in at a glance. If I'm in a room, I can look and see that there are two goblins behind broken terrain that will probably slow me down, a human wizard in the air, and that Jeremy is frozen in place. If I'm playing a game, I need to verify with the DM that the markers are goblins, what the lines on the board mean, that the other marker is a human and is hovering off the ground, and then with Jeremy for whether his character is incapacitated, while in 'real life' I'd pick that up just glancing around me with no significant time expenditure. Limiting what characters can do because players don't have exact visual/auditory information that the character would casually acquire is, again, not really reasonable.

[Samayu]

I think a few factors are there to be considered...


How new are they to D&D?
How new are they to the class they're playing?
Is anyone at the table wishing the game would go on?



That's totally fair, but I hurry my new players too. I let them think, but not too long. But I'll also warn them if I think they're making a mistake.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Didn't want to side track the rude/house rule thread.

The subject came up of players talking strategy during combat slowing the game down. The question is how much talking do you allow?

I'm on the fence on this at the moment. I can see the DM's view that you can't have a lengthy conversation while fighting. It doesn't make sense as each round is only 6 seconds. Players should know what to do, and it does lengthen real world play time which can be a problem. However, from the players' perspective it's not fair if they can't talk. The bad guys don't have a strategy problem because they all work together at the speed of thought. The DM controls them all, so he knows what each bad guy will do when and why for tactical advantage. Players can't. They have to talk to communicate tactical strategy as the combat happens. If they're to use teamwork they need to tell each other what needs to be done.

You probably need to allow some. If these seasoned adventurers had spent months together hunting a Lich they'd know where each party member keeps their healing potions.

Then again, you have to protect the unbossy from the bossy and keep things moving.

[Pex]

Anything the players discuss, the NPCs hear and can react to/counter.

That is blatantly unfair because players don't hear the DM's thoughts. I'm not on the fence for that.

[Brookshw]

That is blatantly unfair because players don't hear the DM's thoughts. I'm not on the fence for that.

You don't think it's dependant on how the DM runs encounters? I.e., monsters making fairly obvious choices (kill the guy who just did the big "thing"), have creatures act relatively independently rather than playing to a collective strength/strategy?

[zinycor]

You don't think it's dependant on how the DM runs encounters? I.e., monsters making fairly obvious choices (kill the guy who just did the big "thing"), have creatures act relatively independently rather than playing to a collective strength/strategy?

No, I don't. Because not every enemy or group of enemies is like that. If so, that would be a problem.

[Brookshw]

No, I don't. Because not every enemy or group of enemies is like that. If so, that would be a problem.

So where's the line?

[zinycor]

So where's the line?

You don't make it so the NPCs hear everything players say to eachother.

[Tawmis]

So where's the line?

NPC: "Good heroes, I am in need of your services."
PC01: "What can we do for you old man?"
NPC: "Old man? I'm a woman!"
PC01: "Sorry, Old Woman."
NPC: "I'm not that Old."
PC01: "Sorry. What can we do for you woman?"
NPC: "You know, I do have a name."
PC01: "Well what is it?"
NPC: "You didn't bother asking. But it's Marsha."
PC01: "What is it we can do for you Lady Marsha?"
NPC: "I need you to find a Line."
PC01: "A... line? I am not sure I understand? Is it a fishing line?"
NPC: "No. It's a Line. But I must bestow you this one warning..."
PC01: "Which is...?"
NPC: "Do not cross the line."
PC01: "Do not cross it? Like... anger it?"
NPC: "No. Simply do not cross the line. It will anger those around you."
PC01: "I am not sure I understand..."
NPC: "You will know when you find the line... and you will know when you're about to cross it... do you accept my quest?"
PC01: "Blood Hell, no. We're just going to go to the tavern and look for a normal quest, thank you."

(Special nod to Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail) :D

[Brookshw]

You don't make it so the NPCs hear everything players say to eachother.

That's may be a solution but I don't see how it relates to the problem or scenarios you reference. Or maybe I'm not clear on what "like that" or "a problem" means :smallconfused:


No, I don't. Because not every enemy or group of enemies is like that. If so, that would be a problem.

[zinycor]

It relates to:


That is blatantly unfair because players don't hear the DM's thoughts. I'm not on the fence for that.

which started this conversation

[Tanarii]

I encourage players to work out basic tactics in advance. They also frequently have their characters have a quick pow-wow before an assault they are launching. But once combat starts, I expect players to act, not pause time to discuss things while the enemies stand there frozen.

Also combat is like anything else at the table, if you say it, the character either attempts to do or say it. This has had some hilarious (to me) results when they forgot henchmen are listening.


That is blatantly unfair because players don't hear the DM's thoughts. I'm not on the fence for that.
Why not? A DM can have the enemies talk during battle. It enhances verisimilitude, immersion, and ... uh, I ran out buzzwords. Send help!

[Cheesegear]

Players should know what to do, and it does lengthen real world play time which can be a problem.

The first one or two practice fights, on Easy or Moderate difficulty, players might be figuring things out as they try and work out how to play their characters best in the party that they've been grouped with. However, after the first one or two fights, asking your friend "What ranged weapons do you have?" sort of becomes a bit silly since, you know, you should already know your party by that point.

Similarly, it can help to roleplay the party discussion, during camp or whatever. Where each party member tells the others what they're good at, and what they can do in a situation. That way they don't need to talk during the fight. The party already knows that the Monk can Disengage as a bonus action, dodge through the entire enemy line, and grapple the caster on the first round. It might help to outline your spell list; "PROTIP. If I have crap initiative, everyone before me should make Readied Actions on Round 1 until I cast Haste."

Your players and their characters, should know their designated role in a combat after the first few combats. The reason that all the hostiles act in a co-ordinated fashion is because they're all part of a group. They know each other and have more than likely set upon adventurers before. They know the score, so they act co-ordinated. If your players aren't co-ordinated by the time combat happens, that's on them - not the DM.

If your players want to do something unexpected, they can absolutely use their 6 seconds to make a fairly simple statement; "Get down.", or "Nobody move." ...Everybody takes Readied Actions until the player with the idea (and poor initiative) does the play.


However, from the players' perspective it's not fair if they can't talk.

That's why a player with a Familiar or similar sends a scout. You learn the layout of the next encounter, and make your plan in relative safety where you can talk at a reasonable volume.

The other issue is that quite often you don't get to plan:
The party is Surprised.
Act now!
No, you don't get to plan because you're already in the encounter. Again, simple statements like "I'll take the big one." is perfectly acceptable. But taking two or three minutes to have a tactical discussion during a surprise encounter, is definitely not what the DM had in mind.

Session Zeroes are things that exist; The DM should absolutely explain how speech is going to work during combat, and the players should absolutely have told each other at the very least, what their characters' classes are and what weapons they use.

[Trickery]

Players strategizing in combat reflects the time their characters would have spent strategizing outside of combat. There's nothing wrong with it.

If your combats are going on too long because of it, try any of the following:

Use a timer
Have players declare their actions at the start of the round so that, during the round, they just go through movement, reactions, and only have to change their action if their intended action becomes obsolete.
Just talk to your players like a reasonable adult and say you'd like to speed up combat. They'll have some ideas and you can all talk.

Oftentimes, the obvious solution is the right one.

[Tawmis]

Players strategizing in combat reflects the time their characters would have spent strategizing outside of combat. There's nothing wrong with it.


Which might be fine - but what if the party is surprised, during their camp - by a group of goblins who got the drop on them?
Where's the time that the characters would have had to strategize?

[Wizard_Lizard]

Isn't speaking a free action?

[Tawmis]

Isn't speaking a free action?

Yes. But there's a difference between, "Palin, attack the goblin to the left! I shall take down the one to the right!"

And, "Okay, Barb. So... what do you think we should do? The goblin to the left looks like it might be the chief? Should I run in and attack? Maybe try to distract it? So that you can try to sneak in shadows and do an advantage surprise/assassinate attack? Or should we both concentrate on the same goblin and just take them both down, one by one?"

[Pex]

I encourage players to work out basic tactics in advance. They also frequently have their characters have a quick pow-wow before an assault they are launching. But once combat starts, I expect players to act, not pause time to discuss things while the enemies stand there frozen.

Also combat is like anything else at the table, if you say it, the character either attempts to do or say it. This has had some hilarious (to me) results when they forgot henchmen are listening.


Why not? A DM can have the enemies talk during battle. It enhances verisimilitude, immersion, and ... uh, I ran out buzzwords. Send help!

The DM can, but he doesn't. The NPCs just do what they do. They have more of an advantage when the DM planned the encounter. He knew what the NPCs would do before the game started, so when combat happens the bad guys are ready for round one. Of course PCs tend to win combats despite the advantage, but in terms of the subject matter being able to talk is what helps them win.

Best I can say is I have seen a few circumstances where the bad guys say something, but unless a PC speaks the language no one understands so they might as well say nothing. However, when the DM does do it and PCs do understand he allows the players to react to it, so he's not the DM who forbids players talking to each other during combat at least as long at it's not excessive.

I also think there are two types of players talking. Many DMs would reject the players plan out an entire combat strategy in the middle of combat. That I can agree with the DM. You don't halt combat for that, but that's not the player talking I was thinking about though I understand it could have been interpreted that way. What I meant was a strategy to happen in a specific round in that moment. A PC goes to move somewhere to do something but another player says he'll be in the way can you do what you want somewhere else or if you go there to do that instead I can do this and we womp the bad guy. It's not about controlling the other player but coordinating a Cool Combo of actions or at least don't clash so both get to do what they want to do.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Yes. But there's a difference between, "Palin, attack the goblin to the left! I shall take down the one to the right!"

And, "Okay, Barb. So... what do you think we should do? The goblin to the left looks like it might be the chief? Should I run in and attack? Maybe try to distract it? So that you can try to sneak in shadows and do an advantage surprise/assassinate attack? Or should we both concentrate on the same goblin and just take them both down, one by one?"

fair point... My party doesn't even talk that often, and I am the only one who treats dnd as something more than mechanical, so we don't really have this problem.
Generally what happens is...
Rogue: I attack the big one
Paladin:I hit that one also, and smite
Me (Warlock): Dark power emanates from my fingertips as I utter the terrible incantations that shall send my foes to their doom! I shoot an eldritch blast from my left palm, and it directly hits the goblin on the jaw, sending him flying over the edge of the abyss!
Paladin; dude, Just say that you cast eldritch blast.

[OverLordOcelot]

Similarly, it can help to roleplay the party discussion, during camp or whatever. Where each party member tells the others what they're good at, and what they can do in a situation. That way they don't need to talk during the fight. The party already knows that the Monk can Disengage as a bonus action, dodge through the entire enemy line, and grapple the caster on the first round. It might help to outline your spell list; "PROTIP. If I have crap initiative, everyone before me should make Readied Actions on Round 1 until I cast Haste."

This sounds like it would be absolutely and utterly boring to me if done effectively - you're going to roleplay people discussing possible strategies that might not even come up? I'd rather play the game than spend hours on end talking about possible fights they might have. On the other hand, maybe you're going to just do a quick summary discussion? Then the players aren't doing nearly as much strategizing as the characters would, since real world mercenary companies, SWAT teams, nobles and retinue, and the like would be doing this sort of thing all the time. And they'd remember it since it's their life on the line, while the players are going to go off to day jobs and family in between sessions, and many aren't going to touch any gaming stuff.

I think it's much better to run the actual game part of the game and have the players sort things out in a short discussion during combat than to have a long discussion that isn't actual game play which people will probably forget half of by the next session anyway.


Which might be fine - but what if the party is surprised, during their camp - by a group of goblins who got the drop on them?
Where's the time that the characters would have had to strategize?

The hours, days, or weeks of travel leading up to the ambush in the camp.

[Tawmis]

fair point... My party doesn't even talk that often, and I am the only one who treats dnd as something more than mechanical, so we don't really have this problem.
Generally what happens is...
Rogue: I attack the big one
Paladin:I hit that one also, and smite
Me (Warlock): Dark power emanates from my fingertips as I utter the terrible incantations that shall send my foes to their doom! I shoot an eldritch blast from my left palm, and it directly hits the goblin on the jaw, sending him flying over the edge of the abyss!
Paladin; dude, Just say that you cast eldritch blast.

Tell me, that you then Eldritch Blast the Paladin? Because it sounds like they need it. :smallwink:

[Tawmis]

The hours, days, or weeks of travel leading up to the ambush in the camp.

So the party has prepared for every situation?
If we have two goblins ambush us in the forest - we've discussed it.
If it's three goblins - and one is 10' away, one is 15' away, and one is jumping on the cleric in their sleep - we've discussed it.
If it's two goblins - one ogre - and one Ettin - don't worry - we covered that too, during our travels.

Every battle is potentially very different. I can't imagine that, all these days of travel - especially when I think of characters adventuring together, they're not sitting there planning every possible attack against them (unless they have a Military Background or are absolutely paranoid). I'd see them sitting around the fire, cooking food, sharing stories of their adventures - rather than an all out plan for every possibility.

[Pex]

So the party has prepared for every situation?
If we have two goblins ambush us in the forest - we've discussed it.
If it's three goblins - and one is 10' away, one is 15' away, and one is jumping on the cleric in their sleep - we've discussed it.
If it's two goblins - one ogre - and one Ettin - don't worry - we covered that too, during our travels.

Every battle is potentially very different. I can't imagine that, all these days of travel - especially when I think of characters adventuring together, they're not sitting there planning every possible attack against them (unless they have a Military Background or are absolutely paranoid). I'd see them sitting around the fire, cooking food, sharing stories of their adventures - rather than an all out plan for every possibility.

But would you object to:

Cleric: I cast Sacred Flame.
Rogue: Wait, if you cast Guiding Bolt I can get sneak attack.
Cleric: Good idea. I cast Guiding Bolt instead.

Who is attacking the party is irrelevant.

[Tawmis]

But would you object to:

Cleric: I cast Sacred Flame.
Rogue: Wait, if you cast Guiding Bolt I can get sneak attack.
Cleric: Good idea. I cast Guiding Bolt instead.

Who is attacking the party is irrelevant.

Because that sounds like something's that is quickly discussed - personally, I'd have no issue with it.
That could be easily explained that the Rogue recognizes the words of the prayer from the Cleric, from traveling with them.

I don't mind my players discussing things - as long as it doesn't take too long.

Like if the discussion veered into, "Well... Sacred Flame would do damage ... but you're right... Guiding Bolt might be a better idea. What do you think, Dave?"
Then Dave weighs in his thoughts, and he's neither Rogue nor Cleric involved.
Which leads to all three, sitting there weight out all the options - while combat is frozen.

[Tanarii]

The DM can, but he doesn't. The NPCs just do what they do. They have more of an advantage when the DM planned the encounter. He knew what the NPCs would do before the game started, so when combat happens the bad guys are ready for round one. Of course PCs tend to win combats despite the advantage, but in terms of the subject matter being able to talk is what helps them win.And the players can do the same thing as the enemies, prepare a basic strategy ahead of time. Or a specific one, all they have to do is scout properly.


I also think there are two types of players talking. Many DMs would reject the players plan out an entire combat strategy in the middle of combat. That I can agree with the DM. You don't halt combat for that, but that's not the player talking I was thinking about though I understand it could have been interpreted that way. What I meant was a strategy to happen in a specific round in that moment. A PC goes to move somewhere to do something but another player says he'll be in the way can you do what you want somewhere else or if you go there to do that instead I can do this and we womp the bad guy. It's not about controlling the other player but coordinating a Cool Combo of actions or at least don't clash so both get to do what they want to do.The latter is absolutely fine by me. But my rule is things must get translated into the in-game world, because metagaming is a myth, and translating to the in-game world is a large part of what keeps it that way. So if you talk tactics, clearly your characters are communicating to each other in-game. And if the DM thinks about them during a creatures turn (as opposed to just making snap decisions & doing stuff), it behooves her to have the creatures talk & yell stuff to each other too.

I'll note that if I was running a game where the party had explicitly adventured together for years and talked tactics by the fireside, I might provide a table talk benefit as a result for the first few sessions. I've done that before in games (mostly not-D&D) where the PCs are military squads with battle mats. Free talk of strategy allowed while the scenario is being set up by me, plus several minutes before the firefight begins.

But historically most games I run for single groups start off with a newly formed adventuring squad, and the players develop tactics naturally anyway as they gain experience with each other. And of course in official play and my current campaign, the PCs come together for specific sessions, and may or may not have had experience adventuring with each other before. Which is why I encourage new players to the campaign to learn to have their PCs talk tactics with each other a little at the beginning of a session. Experienced players already know to do that, because 5-10 minutes at the beginning of the game while I'm setting up can save their PCs lives.

[Trickery]

Which might be fine - but what if the party is surprised, during their camp - by a group of goblins who got the drop on them?
Where's the time that the characters would have had to strategize?

Imagine the team sitting around a fire.

Bubbrubb: "Hey, what if we got ambushed by goblins right now?"
NotGandalf: "Manuever C13"

[Brookshw]

It relates to:

which started this conversation

Ehhh. It strikes me that any unfair advantages monsters may get can be mitigated by a fair DM and I'm not yet convinced that such mitigation is impossible. I do appreciate the point that characters talking to each other during combat shouldn't result in an unfair advantage.

[Trickery]

I don't think this is a fruitful at the moment. People seem to be arguing with their idea of other people's arguments rather than the actual issues.

I don't think anyone is going to tell players not to talk to each other at all in combat, or get upset if a player asks questions about the specifics of an encounter during the encounter. Similarly, I suspect every DM has a limit to how much discussion they will allow during combat before they tell someone to make a move.

There are strategies for speeding things up, the best one being to just ask your players to do so. That's probably all anyone needs.

[OverLordOcelot]

So the party has prepared for every situation?
If we have two goblins ambush us in the forest - we've discussed it.
If it's three goblins - and one is 10' away, one is 15' away, and one is jumping on the cleric in their sleep - we've discussed it.
If it's two goblins - one ogre - and one Ettin - don't worry - we covered that too, during our travels.

Every battle is potentially very different.

That's a senseless way to prepare for a fight, and the answer to your question of 'so they went about preparing in a really dumb way? no that doesn't make sense' is 'no, they prepared like real people do, not like the strawmen you've created'. They would have an idea of each other's capabilities, who does and doesn't want to be in melee, who gets really hurt by melee, what spells might you might need to account for, if there might be mind control/sleep/charm/etc effects (avoid attacking that enemy) or incapacitating effects (kill them fast), and the like. Plus they'd go over things like whether they should target first in melee/ranged/casters, weak vs strong, who can be left in danger and who probably needs saving, how to signal which set of targets are being attacked, how to coordinate (like 'if barbarian is charging casters, mage should focus on clearing the way' or 'rogue on the first round benefits greatly from guiding bolt or help action'), who to buff, how to law down control effects (do you want melee on the 'other side' or 'this side' of a wall of stone?) and the like.


I can't imagine that, all these days of travel - especially when I think of characters adventuring together, they're not sitting there planning every possible attack against them (unless they have a Military Background or are absolutely paranoid). I'd see them sitting around the fire, cooking food, sharing stories of their adventures - rather than an all out plan for every possibility.

I don't see adventurers as being as blatantly, suicidally stupid as you do. Real people who are going into danger coordinate with each other about what they'll do in a fight, and do combat drills of various sorts to stay in condition and familiarize themselves with their companions if the travel conditions are moderate. Players don't do it because they're getting together for a game for something like 4 hours out of a week, but players also aren't going to die or get turned to stone if they screw up, they'll just roll another character in the worst case. But if you took five players who had some degree of combat training and decided to become mercenaries, then dropped them into a jungle with hostile enemies with weapons, I would be very surprised if they didn't spend quite a bit of time figuring out how to work together rather than entirely lounging and telling stories.