PDA

View Full Version : Player Communication During Battle



Tormsskull
2008-09-04, 05:25 PM
Hi all,

I've learned that a lot of people play differently than my group does from the various threads Matthew has been chucking up on the boards, and from one that I did so far. So I figured I'd throw another one up that I am guessing might have differences.

So, when a battle breaks out, how do you as a DM handle communication between the players? Do they freely discuss strategy in-between their turns and then act? Do the players give each other advice, remind each other to go into flanking positions, or suggest optimal actions for one another?

Lycan 01
2008-09-04, 05:28 PM
I tell my CoC players not to plan together unless their character is actually able to at that point. thus, there is no strategy, usually. I tell them just to do what their character would naturally do. Two might run, one might actually bark an order, and the rest might just pick a target and open fire.

Crow
2008-09-04, 05:28 PM
I don't really pay attention to how the players do their thing. I just make sure they don't bleed OoC knowledge into IC.

Bryn
2008-09-04, 05:29 PM
I let them talk as much as they like. It may be unrealistic, but we don't worry too much about that anyway. I will ask for actions whenever I need them to keep the combat moving along, but I don't bother with time limits or anything like that.

Expecting my players to discuss strategy, though... :smallbiggrin: Ridiculous.

Starsinger
2008-09-04, 05:31 PM
My players do and it doesn't really bother me because of an unpleasant experience I had when I was younger. An older cousin of mine was running a game of Rifts (but he didn't like the combat system so he used a system very similar to the d20 system now instead of Rift's confusing and staggering multi-actions/turn system.) and had us write down on paper what we did on our turns and hand him the papers. Then he proceeded to put it all together and described how the round went.

Narrative-wise, it was beautiful. Unfortunately that was the most friendly fire (including me destroying our Giant Space Hamster Pyromancer...) I'd ever seen.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-04, 05:39 PM
It depends on the game. In a combat-focused game like D&D, there's a ton of OOC tactics talk at all times, and a lot of discussing rules, especially. In a RP-focused game, especially one where I want to make violent scenes tense, there's no such thing, and not enough time for it. (Ah, CoC. Dark, candlelit room at night and the GM screaming "WHAT DO YOU DO!? HURRY!!" at you... 15 second fights...) Other games fall in between, and most of the tactics talk is assumed to be IC. If discussion gets too involved, I just start loudly counting to ten. (I never reach it, but if I did, the current player's turn would be forfeited.)

FMArthur
2008-09-04, 05:43 PM
We fail at combat, but the skilled combatants we're roleplaying aren't supposed to. It's understood in the two groups I'm in that it's mostly communicated through quick signals, body language, and training, the kinds of things that a player wouldn't know but a well-trained professional would. Maybe it's silly for level 1s, but at levels 6+ it should be expected that your characters are professionals who are good at their job and are familiar with common tactics. So we let players give advice or talk about options during combat, because these are things that the characters would be thinking about. A complicated choice of action that is out of character for a PC to do without having spoken at length with his teammates is usually a no-go without at least wasting a move action, though.

GWLlosa
2008-09-04, 05:44 PM
Our DM lets us talk and strategize all we want, but simply assumes the talking is in character. This can have absolutely hilarious upsides when the big bad NPC starts rolling 'listen' checks to overhear our sniggering remarks about his lineage, and even funnier results in stressful negotiations...


Me: Look, just cause you're a dragon, and we're adventurers that you caught near your cave, doesn't mean we were here to gank you and take your stuff!

Dragon: Really? <opposed bluff and sense motive> Well, maybe I'll hear out your amazing arguements....

Party Member: Wait, weren't we here to gank him? I wouldn't wanna walk all this way and not gank him. Maybe you keep him talking, we'll sneak into flank spots?

Dragon: Really? Good plan. <Rolls initiative.>

arguskos
2008-09-04, 05:52 PM
I tend to use a stopwatch in combat. Each player has 30 seconds to take his/her turn, otherwise, they lose it. Of course, they can talk strategy out of combat all they want, but in combat, nope, no damn time, hurryhurryhurry gogogogo!!!

-argus

EndlessWrath
2008-09-04, 06:06 PM
I'm not so much a fan for stopwatch. Sure it hurries turns up... but the player might hesitate...where as the character him/her self would not. The character could be a well thought out killing machine...but if the player runs out of time...its unrealistic for the turn to just end. I feel if you are to use zed device, make it so everyone must stop talking at the end of the thirty seconds... and he/she must make a decision. kinda like "who wants to be a millionaire" while the player is phoning a friend.
----------------
It's never been too much a problem for me. The group i just played with (my first campaign.. lasted 2.5 years. ) consisted of a headstrong barbarian. a rogue. a sorcerer, bard, and warlock, with the occasional Ranged feat monkey and druid. the only one who couldn't decide what to do was the Rogue. the others knew their turns instantly.
---------------
I do like the all comments are IC. I'll start makign fun of the barbarian.. who never knew any character names... just called by player's names. Why is he talking to himself? who are these people? :smallamused:

Dervag
2008-09-04, 06:16 PM
All comments in character is OK. But here's the problem.

In character, the party spends a lot of time together. If they expect to get into a bunch of fights over and over, they'll plan their tactics in advance and work out ways to cover each other for mutual advantage. When they get into a fight they will have a pretty good idea of what to do.

Out of character, the players spend effectively no time discussing tactics outside of battles. All time during play outside of battles is used on something more interesting to the players than planning combat tactics. Time not spent playing is almost certain not to be used planning combat tactics, given that players are real people.

Therefore, the players need something to offset the lack of coordination. It's not their fault that the PCs spend a lot less time together out of character than they do in character.

To make matters worse, all the NPCs are controlled by a massive telepathic overmind. They never even need to discuss battle plans among themselves. It puts the PCs at a huge and unfair disadvantage if they don't get at least a bit of tactical discussion during combat.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-04, 06:33 PM
All comments in character is OK. But here's the problem.

In character, the party spends a lot of time together. If they expect to get into a bunch of fights over and over, they'll plan their tactics in advance and work out ways to cover each other for mutual advantage. When they get into a fight they will have a pretty good idea of what to do.

Out of character, the players spend effectively no time discussing tactics outside of battles. All time during play outside of battles is used on something more interesting to the players than planning combat tactics. Time not spent playing is almost certain not to be used planning combat tactics, given that players are real people.

Therefore, the players need something to offset the lack of coordination. It's not their fault that the PCs spend a lot less time together out of character than they do in character.

To make matters worse, all the NPCs are controlled by a massive telepathic overmind. They never even need to discuss battle plans among themselves. It puts the PCs at a huge and unfair disadvantage if they don't get at least a bit of tactical discussion during combat.This. Beyond that, I have an Int 16, Wis 15 Warblade who trained to fight from the time he was able to hold a knife. If the Int 20 Wizard and I discuss tactics, we're still not going to come close to what my character would think of on his own.

Swordguy
2008-09-04, 06:42 PM
All comments in character is OK. But here's the problem.

In character, the party spends a lot of time together. If they expect to get into a bunch of fights over and over, they'll plan their tactics in advance and work out ways to cover each other for mutual advantage. When they get into a fight they will have a pretty good idea of what to do.

Out of character, the players spend effectively no time discussing tactics outside of battles. All time during play outside of battles is used on something more interesting to the players than planning combat tactics. Time not spent playing is almost certain not to be used planning combat tactics, given that players are real people.

Therefore, the players need something to offset the lack of coordination. It's not their fault that the PCs spend a lot less time together out of character than they do in character.

To make matters worse, all the NPCs are controlled by a massive telepathic overmind. They never even need to discuss battle plans among themselves. It puts the PCs at a huge and unfair disadvantage if they don't get at least a bit of tactical discussion during combat.

I generally agree, but my solution is to allow the players to discuss strategy for a few minutes at the start of the battle, and every few rounds thereafter as circumstances change. Constant talk gets in the way of the necessary OOG communication between PCs and DM, but talking tactics a couple minutes every 4-6 rounds is generally a good compromise.

arguskos
2008-09-04, 06:43 PM
I'm not so much a fan for stopwatch. Sure it hurries turns up... but the player might hesitate...where as the character him/her self would not. The character could be a well thought out killing machine...but if the player runs out of time...its unrealistic for the turn to just end. I feel if you are to use zed device, make it so everyone must stop talking at the end of the thirty seconds... and he/she must make a decision. kinda like "who wants to be a millionaire" while the player is phoning a friend.
See, I do that. The character in question needs to give me an action at the end of the thirty seconds, or they forfeit their turn (that never happens, but it's a useful threat).

-argus

Glyde
2008-09-04, 06:53 PM
Talking is a free action. If they start talking, I count to six out loud (But not so they can't hear themselves of course). Once I get to six I ask for an action. If I get too much hesitation, they go after the next person in the init line for the rest of the fight.

It's different when I play online of course, but in person, this is how I do it.

Breaw
2008-09-04, 06:59 PM
My group has a fair bit of communication, but only if there is a reasonable way to communicate the information. For example we were fighting a bunch of elves in a Duchy wide obscuring mist. The dwarf had a special ability that worked like detect life once per day as long as he could concentrate. The party member with some sorc levels used a whole bunch of 'message' spells to set up a communication network so the dwarf could direct our actions. Our DM generally encourages player input, even when their character is absent. Good ideas are good ideas.

At one point I played in a group that was ALL about the planning. The DM didn't have to worry about communication during the fight, because most of the time the communication came down to 'battle plan c' and we all knew what we needed to do. Really depends on the group of players, and the feel the DM is going for.

-B

Prometheus
2008-09-04, 07:01 PM
I know it is unrealistic, but I let my PCs talk (about the battle) as much as they like. So long as one player isn't deciding every other player's moves, it adds a cooperative and strategic element to the game. I just don't feel right intervening into how players play the game to the extent that it gets to the personal level of talking.

TempusCCK
2008-09-04, 07:16 PM
As a DM I allow what I feel is necessary, but without letting it get too far out of hand. Sometimes it seems alright, other times a "guys, you're not right next to each other, X couldn't possibly know that you were going for that flank."

As a player I'm really bad about being a leader, I set up flanks and bark commands all the time. Works well when I'm playing the Paladin or the Fighter, when I'm playing a Druid or a Mage is when I have to stifle it. However, our DM kind of lets it slide because he has a tendency to throw out overpowered encounters at us and really, our group needs all the help it can get, if my Paladin can line up a shield wall with fire support from behind and a timed opening for the Ranger to attempt to be up at that mage that's up there, well, it's better than if we all just run hapazardly down the hallway. And it's in character, so bonus points there!

The only problem with that being that depending on his mood he decides if the enemy can hear us or not, but the way I figure it, it's a decent balancing act, and if I want to get a message across I either bark it out in a language I don't think the enemy can understand or move myself into a good position and yell at them to do it while I hold the enemies attention.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-04, 07:19 PM
The only problem with that being that depending on his mood he decides if the enemy can hear us or not, but the way I figure it, it's a decent balancing act, and if I want to get a message across I either bark it out in a language I don't think the enemy can understand or move myself into a good position and yell at them to do it while I hold the enemies attention.That's why the entire group speaks Draconic and Celestial. You make plans in whichever the enemy doesn't speak, then you make different plans in something that they can understand. Good for fake-outs.

Tormsskull
2008-09-04, 07:35 PM
That's why the entire group speaks Draconic and Celestial.

Is that something that you arrange for in character creation?

Superglucose
2008-09-04, 07:36 PM
Our group has a 30 second rule.

Now everyone flames me and says, "But ur chars are uuuber combatsss!!1!!1!"

At the same time, there is literally 0 personal risk to the player, 0 adrenaline, 0 outside stimuli distracting the player from the perfect tactical choice. Plus the character gets a 360 degree view of the entire battlefield. Plus it doesn't take a character 6 seconds to act in a round, it takes 6 seconds for all characters to act in a round.

Besides, in 30 seconds all you have to say is "I'm going to move to this square and cast this spell." It's remarkably simple and an inability to make a combat decision in 30 seconds is unacceptable. There just aren't that many options in combat, and each player should (especially if they're making their own character, or have played with it for a while) know what their character is best at!

For example, in my group we have a magician, a DPR dual-wielder, a tank, a martial artist DPR, and another character who doesn't do jack squat (I'm not even sure why he shows up tbh). The Magician almost always casts the same spells (which drain vitality or hit points, and are very effective spells), the DPR characters usually split off and hit the ranged threats first, and the tank usually goes up and sits next to the biggest hitter we're up against. Usually it take less than ten seconds to decide what each individual is going to do, plus you get to look at the combat map during your allies' turns. It works out really well.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-04, 07:38 PM
Is that something that you arrange for in character creation?No, but we usually all end up sharing languages after a few levels. Plus, sometimes it just works out that way. In a campaign started yesterday, with no discussion of languages, all except me speak Draconic, and 2 of us speak Celestial. We also have all the fiendish languages, Elven, Halfling, the elemental languages, and Sylvan. I love caster groups. :smallbiggrin:

Akimbo
2008-09-04, 09:46 PM
When I DM it's the same as the above combats about characters being experienced/smarter/ect. SO I let my players (all relatively poor tacticians) talk it out a bit.

When I play? I don't know, it's been so long since I've had a character that didn't have 100ft telepathy I can't remember what it was like.

Thrawn183
2008-09-04, 10:42 PM
It was funny when my character was the only one with telepathy (this has happened in multiple campaigns) as in addition to coordinating in-combat tactics, I was allowed to make Int checks to transfer skill checks.

Ex: I was outside of a room with an electric trap that the entire rest of the party was trapped in except for the person with disable device. So we chopped a hole in it and had me "instruct" someone next to the device telepathically how to disable it. Essentially I allowed the rogue outside to act like a brain for the eyes and hand inside the room. Took a lot of Int checks, but it was awesome.

Now that in my new party everyone has telepathy... yeah, we can pretty much do whatever we want. I still have telepathy, but they ALL have hive mind. I think it would be out of character for us to not talk at the table to plan our tactics on a round by round basis.

Edit: Once we had an entire party end up learning drow sign language (Eberron campaign) which lead to great amounts of hilarity.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-05, 02:49 AM
I'm in favor of (1) anything the PCs say during battle will be heard by their enemies, and (2) you can't speak for one minute during a single combat round.

Planning should be done in advance.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-09-05, 03:19 AM
At the same time, there is literally 0 personal risk to the player, 0 adrenaline, 0 outside stimuli distracting the player from the perfect tactical choice. Plus the character gets a 360 degree view of the entire battlefield. Plus it doesn't take a character 6 seconds to act in a round, it takes 6 seconds for all characters to act in a round.

Still, if your players are anything like me, then they are 6' tall, 155lb video game players whose greatest knowledge of tactics comes from tabletop wargames, and who fought his brother with sticks a few times as a kid, then you might need the slight edge of being able to make your choices without stress.

I, personally, am not interested in simulation, so much as I am the players having fun. So, as a DM, I allow whatever they want me to allow. I do try to impress a sense of urgency, risk, and outside stimuli in the way I say things and describe the battle and what is at stake. And, in the end, I usually only cut table-talk short if it is long and cutting into the overall suspense and atmosphere of the encounter. (Joking is allowed, so long as it is funny.)

Also, unless a player is new, I don't allow players to tell other players what they should do, as everyone should be allowed to make his/her own choices without having to worry about going against the wishes of their comrades.

Sholos
2008-09-05, 03:56 AM
Saying that planning should be done in advance is nice if a group has a lot of time to sit down together and actually plan. You know, like the characters do. However, most people have lives outside of the game, and so can't take the time to really devote to plans.

bosssmiley
2008-09-05, 04:21 AM
IC speech: where dramatically appropriate. Speaking is only a free action in combat if you are being as cool as Errol Flynn, Han Solo or Indiana Jones. Hmmm...I might rule that wordy pontificating and stirring oratory during combat counts as being flat-footed. :smallbiggrin:

OOC tactical speech is definitely allowed, so long as the characters are in one location (no telepathic groupmind until they get telebond (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/telepathicBond.htm) or similar). I do permit "Hudson Hawk"/"Oceans 11" simultaneous split scenes though - rule of cool applies in those instances.

The reasoning for this? Let's face it, the tactical skills of party of hardened adventurers exceed those of a quartet of neckbeards sitting around a table. Allowing OOC communication between the players just simulates the well-rehearsed and tightly choreographed drills of the in-game tame killer avatars have doubtless gone through during training montages and the like.

I also agree with superglucose' 30 second rule, although I tend to say 10 seconds. You had all that time that other people were acting in to work out what you wanted to do next. The players seem ok with it.

@V: "You sly dog. You got me monologuing!"

Kurald Galain
2008-09-05, 05:00 AM
Oh yeah, and let's not forget the Paranoia mutant power, Evil Villain Soliloquy That Stops Time While It's Going On...

Tormsskull
2008-09-05, 09:51 AM
Another stark difference from previous editions. I don't think their is a rule in any addition hat says 'No talking OOC during combat' or 'You get x seconds to take an action or you lose it', but in 2e they give an example of play which shows the DM hurrying along a wizard PC. The DM tells her that if she doesn't give an answer right away, she'll lose her turn trying to make up her mind.

My preferred way of playing is no OOC talk at the table. If someone starts moving their mini and another player tries to hint to them to move to a specific location or what not, then I'll ask them to stop. If it continues to happen I start leveling penalties on the player (typically increasingly larger negative experience amounts).

The reason for this is that combat is intended to be chaotic, and communication is very limited. I feel that giving each player carte blanche with OOC communication during a batle changes the feeling of the battles from actual battles to stratego or chess.

I do break this rule when it comes to new players though. I usually give them a few battles to get acclimated to the game, and then apply the same rules to them.

As for the posters suggesting that the characters have a lot of off-screen time where they are discussing tactics, that seems like such a waste to me. That could be an excellent source of roleplaying, why would you want to just pass over that?

TwystidMynd
2008-09-05, 10:05 AM
I've played in games where no communication was allowed, limited communication was allowed, any reasonable amount of communication was allows.

The rationale for the "no communication in battle" was that the characters are way too focused on fighting, staying alive, and various other things for any meaningful rational thought. Battle cries and stuff were allowed, but no serious strategizing.

The rationale for the "limited communication" was similar, except that the mood of the game was less gritty, and the characters could shout suggestions to each other. The limit was a hard word limit (6 words to be precise) per character's turn, and you could only speak on your turn. This meant that tactically-minded characters could try to be quick and concise in their messages, and berserker-types didn't have to talk at all.

The rationale for the last, "any reasonable amount" was that the communication was abstracted to the extent that any communication that didn't slow down the game/bore anyone was allowed. Theoretically, all of the characters are at least pseudo-trained in battle, the the extent that their minds are able to quickly choose among a wide variety of options, whereas we couch-sitting, chip-eating hooligans who aren't pumped full of adrenaline nor are faced with a hulking Ogre swinging a spiked hammer at our faces aren't used to making such decisions as quickly as our characters.
Thus, we imagine that any decision the players can make in 5 minutes worth of debating or less is a decision a character could make in 6 seconds or less.

In all of the games, though, we tried our best to keep OOC-knowledge outside of tactical planning.

TwystidMynd
2008-09-05, 10:19 AM
I'm inclined to make a new rule for combat:

When I DM, we will roll initiative.
During the DM's turns, I will move position my NPCs as is reasonable.
During the PC's turns, I will beat the current player with a stick for 6 seconds. During this beating, the player is able to plan as much tactically as s/he wishes. If s/he has not declared an action by the end of the beating, they forfeit their turn.

This, I believe, will give my players a stronger sense of urgency and realism.

Akimbo
2008-09-05, 10:23 AM
I'm inclined to make a new rule for combat:

When I DM, we will roll initiative.
During the DM's turns, I will move position my NPCs as is reasonable.
During the PC's turns, I will beat the current player with a stick for 6 seconds. During this beating, the player is able to plan as much tactically as s/he wishes. If s/he has not declared an action by the end of the beating, they forfeit their turn.

This, I believe, will give my players a stronger sense of urgency and realism.

That's great, do they get to block parry and beat you? Because I haven't had a character that was actually hit by a melee attack in a long time. And breaking the DMs skull just proves that you are smart enough to think of anything your character would.

Voshkod
2008-09-05, 10:26 AM
Oh yeah, and let's not forget the Paranoia mutant power, Evil Villain Soliloquy That Stops Time While It's Going On...

One of the GMs I respect the most turned that trope on its head. During a Werewolf game, the big baddie stepped into our cairn and began his villain soliloquy. My character said "screw it, I'm not listening to this crap" and attacked him almost immediately. His minions charged in and a bloody fight ensured. Afterwards, the GM noted that it was smart to attack right away, as the villain was using his soliloquy to distract us while his minions surrounded us. By attacking immediately, we thwarted that part of his plan, at least.

But we did interrupt a good soliloquy, alas.

As for the subject at hand, the rule needs to be fluid. Players that are a "new" group, never fought together before and don't know each other - make 'em not talk and move quickly. Players who have fought together, know each other, let 'em talk to simulate the abilty to anticipate the moves of your fellow combatants. Snap-count scenario, such as an ambush? Make 'em move fast with little talking. Tailor it to your needs, mix it up, keep 'em on their toes.

TwystidMynd
2008-09-05, 11:20 AM
That's great, do they get to block parry and beat you? Because I haven't had a character that was actually hit by a melee attack in a long time. And breaking the DMs skull just proves that you are smart enough to think of anything your character would.

Hmm... you bring a good point.

Perhaps the players should be allowed sticks of their own.

But then, this doesn't accurately represent the game, either.

Maybe I'll let the player's defend themselves, but I'd also have an entourage of 2d4+4 college kids beat the players as well. They can have little hats with lumps of wax on them, and I'll tell them to scream "YOU NO TOUCH CANDLE!" while they swing. Yes, my Kobolds have candles in D&D =P

DeathQuaker
2008-09-05, 11:49 AM
For a very tactical game like D&D, I will allow strategical discussion to a point. I figure adventurers used to fighting are going to pull out tactics quicker than their players can, so they should have a chance to talk about a battleplan.

However, if the strategizing is
a. Taking more time than the combat itself
b. Involving metagame knowledge (i.e., the "Strategizing" includes, "Yeah, but that's gotta be a Chromatic Pudding, so it's going to be Immune to Tickling Rays, so don't do that..." when the PCs have no idea what a Chromatic Pudding is)
c. Devolving into rules arguments

I'll put a stop to it.

My BIGGER problem is less general tactical discussion and more veteran players BOMBARDING a newer player with "Advice" about what to do on their combat turn. E.g.,

Newbie: Uh, I guess I'll hit it with my mace.
Geek1: NO! You should cast Mordenkainen's Greater Tickling Ray, dummy!
Geek2: No! You should totally buff me with Greater Cheesefactoring!
Newbie: Wait, do I even have these spells? *starts rifling through book*
Geek1: Yeah, it's on page 253 of the PHB.
Geek2: No, it's 252. But I know the stats for Greater Cheesefactoring, it gives me a +2 to Buttwhupping.
Newbie: But I only have one spell left for today, and I don't know if I want to...
Geek1: OR, you know what, you could move in to flank me, and then yadda yadda yadda
DM: *looks at Monster's stats, sees that all that needs to happen is someone needs to hit it with... dunno, a mace to drop it* Guys, just let Newbie do what he wants. He's got to learn what his character to do in his own time.
Geek1: Yeah, but.... we need to talk TACTICS....

And on and on, ending with the DM murdering Geek1 and Geek2 in their dreamless sleep.

The problem with this beyond slowing the game down unnecessarily is that the poor Newbie never gains any confidence in his own decisions, and never actually learns what works for him or how to play his character on his own in a way that he's happy with. Good new players will of course assert themselves and tell Geek1 and Geek2 to shut up, but sometimes being overwhelmed by the rules, new players are going to easily second guess themselves. I've seen some players truly bully newbies into doing what they want the newbie's character to do (often to benefit the other player's PC rather than the newbie's). Which is all the more frustrating when more often than not, as above, the Newbie's first thought on what to do is the best option.

I've also seen low-confidence or lazy newbies NEVER LEARN THE FREAKING RULES because they'd rather just let someone else dictate their combat actions and avoid argument.

But that's not strategic discussion. It's stalling and bullying and a general amount of social cluelessness.

*DeathQuaker notes there are certain people she loves outside of gaming that she will never, ever ask back to her table again. and will stop half-off-topically tangenting now, and will walk off to design the Chromatic Pudding*

Saph
2008-09-05, 11:58 AM
My BIGGER problem is less general tactical discussion and more veteran players BOMBARDING a newer player with "Advice" about what to do on their combat turn.

This. This, this this. It drives me crazy, and one of the reasons I limit tactical discussion at the table is exactly because it so often turns into "You should do X!" "No, you should do Y!" "No, you should do Z!" "What's the rules for Z?" "They're like this." "No, they're-" . . . and on, and on, and on.

As a player I always try and think out my actions ahead of time so that I can take my turn quickly, and I won't listen to other players interrupting me unless a) it's in-character, and b) it's really important.

- Saph

TwystidMynd
2008-09-05, 12:21 PM
My BIGGER problem is less general tactical discussion and more veteran players BOMBARDING a newer player with "Advice" about what to do on their combat turn.
This. This, this this. It drives me crazy, and one of the reasons I limit tactical discussion at the table is exactly because it so often turns into "You should do X!" "No, you should do Y!" "No, you should do Z!" "What's the rules for Z?" "They're like this." "No, they're-" . . . and on, and on, and on.

Ugh, I totally agree. I saw this for the first time when I ran Kobold Hall for a group that had 2 4e "vets" and 2 new-to-4e players. In one on the tougher combats, one of my vets just started shouting orders at the new guys. I told him to chill, but if he does it again, I may have to kick him in a very uncomfortable place.

Akimbo
2008-09-05, 12:25 PM
I won't listen to other players interrupting me unless a) it's in-character, and b) it's really important.

That should probably be OR, not and. Seeing as: "Look a Polar Bear is going to bite your face!" Is always a valid interruption.

Bryn
2008-09-05, 12:26 PM
I'm so glad my players never learned the rules. I never have to deal with that problem :smallbiggrin:

(No, I exaggerate. They learned some of the rules.)

Epinephrine
2008-09-05, 12:55 PM
We're allowed 6 words per round, roughly, to communicate with each other.

You're allowed virtually any number of words for roleplaying, bragging about your kills, taunting enemies, but if it's for the purpose of communicating it's got to be short - 6 words-ish. "Star, behind you!" is fine, as are "the goblin's staff is magical!" or "fall back, get behind me!" followed by readying an action.

Saph
2008-09-05, 12:57 PM
We're allowed 6 words per round, roughly, to communicate with each other.

You're allowed virtually any number of words for roleplaying, bragging about your kills, taunting enemies, but if it's for the purpose of communicating it's got to be short - 6 words-ish. "Star, behind you!" is fine, as are "the goblin's staff is magical!" or "fall back, get behind me!" followed by readying an action.

The way one of my DMs used to run it was that for communicating with other players, you got 10 words on your turn, and 3 words outside it.

This led to entertaining conversations with players trying to pack as much information as they could into as few words as possible, with frequent amusing miscommunications. ("Hey, you just said to stop. You didn't say which thing I was supposed to stop doing . . .")

In dramatic moments, or for roleplaying or comedy value, the limit was ignored, of course. :) Even then, though, after a few sentences a round was assumed to have passed.

- Saph

valadil
2008-09-05, 01:27 PM
I regularly play with two groups. One of them chats freely. I think they go a little overboard with it. Whenever players have turns next to each other they invariably take turns delaying actions so that they can get the optimal series of actions. They've even tried to split up actions around each other. The whole group seems to prefer playing that way so I haven't argued too much.

My other group plays my way. You get a short sentence in combat. It clearly conveys what you want. Steve, flank with me. Heal him first. Bob, get the archers. Glitterdust on their leader, stand back. Invisible guy near Will. Etc. This makes a lot more sense to me.

What I especially don't like about the first group's style is that it makes status and rary's telepathic bond near worthless. Everyone knows everyone else's HP and we have infinite time to plan. Maybe I'll be a bit stricter next time I GM for them.

-- edit --

The one thing I do prefer about the free chatting group is that we also take time outs from combat for dramatic monologues. Usually it's the NPC talking, but I still enjoy it. If you tried that with the strictly one sentence group, the NPC would speak for six seconds and forfeit his turn.

kjones
2008-09-05, 01:40 PM
See, Hackmaster does this right. The "Small Unit Tactics" skill allows a party small amounts of OOC communication during a battle - otherwise, you're on your own.

Beating your players with sticks is optional, but recommended.

TwystidMynd
2008-09-05, 01:53 PM
Beating your players with sticks is optional, but recommended.
Any system where beating players with sticks is merely "optional" is a faulty system imo.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-05, 01:59 PM
Any system where beating players with sticks is merely "optional" is a faulty system imo.HEY! No LARPing!

Duke of URL
2008-09-05, 02:19 PM
I'll echo "it depends on the game". In D&D, I generally allow it, because the OOC chatter simulates the expertise the characters would have gaine dby adventuring with each other.

In Paranoia, on the other hand, anything they say can will be used against them.