Warlord Player's job is to tell other players what to do??

[VannATLC]

And I am not sure where you are getting your idea of it from since I haven't seen anyone express metagaming any other way than what SmCaudata wrote. It's using your knowledge as a player in a way that breaks from what your character would ordinarily do.

Having the game grind to a halt while the players sit around discussing where everyone is going to move to avoid attacks of opportunity, set up healing chains, or position characters to optimize or avoid areas of effects general involves metagaming and I think it takes a lot of fun out of the game.

The warlord as presented feels like it will be encouraging that sort of metagaming--like you have one player designated to look at the battle map like a chessboard. That player is meant to move his pieces around to best effect, and that includes moving pieces other players rightly feel are theirs to move as they please.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure why tactical discussion encourages metagaming?

An attack of opportunity is an abstraction, so is an area effect.. While I'll grant that some usage of some knowledge in such a situation (A character with no knowledge or experience with the fireball spell, knowing the range and radius) I don't think there is anything inherent in the discussion that is metagaming.

 

[Kobu]

I wasn't talking about just a player attempting to play a Warlord. I was talking about cross table tactical discussions which result in a player being pressured to go with the group.

I have two players in my group that are not so good at tactics. I discourage cross table combat tactics talk for two reasons:

1) I want those players to learn in order to get better at it (one of them is my wife) and that doesn't happen as well if other people often make decisions for them. They learn better by learning from their own mistakes and watching what tactics the other players use.

2) I do not want to embarrass those players by having other people chime in "smarter tactics". Fred says "I move up and attack" and Barney says "No, no. You want to move around him like this to both avoid the Attack of Opportunity and gain the Flank.".


People who need to play with cross table combat tactics discussions seem to be more "win/goal" oriented than "let each player do what he wants to have fun, even if he makes a mistake" oriented. At least IME.

Those are good reasons.

Some of my reasons for discouraging table talk:

1) Speed of the game

2) Your characters are not omniscient in regards to the battlefield

3) It tends to take players out of character

4) As DM, I don't optimize enemy tactics--they make mistakes just like the PCs do

My impression of the warlord is that it will slow things down to the point where it will negate the time saving benefits of set powers, the character will behave as though he is omniscient, a lot of things he does will be too complex to run in character, and I will need to respond to his tactics in a like way to keep the encounters balanced.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If someone tries to move me against my will (or force me into anything else against my will) they are by definition no longer my ally. So if warlord tries to move someone against their will they will fail by the rules.

You're making an assumption - that the term 'ally' will not have a specific definition in the rules.

It may be based on the perception of the character using the ability, in which case whether you consider yourself to be his ally or not, you might be an ally for the purpose of the ability if he deems you to be.

(Actually, I really hope that 'ally' and 'enemy' are defined in the 4E rules. The 3E definitions weren't very useful.)

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

I am still failing to see the problem.

If someone tries to move me against my will (or force me into anything else against my will) they are by definition no longer my ally. So if warlord tries to move someone against their will they will fail by the rules.

Even if this were true, than the moment the Warlord is no longer your PC's ally is the moment your PC gets no other ally bonuses from him. For example, a Perception aura from an Elven Warlord (or other Warlord bonuses).

 

[king_ghidorah]

And I am not sure where you are getting your idea of it from since I haven't seen anyone express metagaming any other way than what SmCaudata wrote. It's using your knowledge as a player in a way that breaks from what your character would ordinarily do.

Someone saying "I'm hurt bad--get up here and use your best healing spell on me" is the same as a player saying "I'm down 50 HP. Cast cure critical on me next round." That's not metagaming.

Having the game grind to a halt while the players sit around discussing where everyone is going to move to avoid attacks of opportunity, set up healing chains, or position characters to optimize or avoid areas of effects general involves metagaming and I think it takes a lot of fun out of the game.

The warlord as presented feels like it will be encouraging that sort of metagaming--like you have one player designated to look at the battle map like a chessboard. That player is meant to move his pieces around to best effect, and that includes moving pieces other players rightly feel are theirs to move as they please.

I don't really follow this as a direct correlation. But to play devil's advocate, wouldn't an expert tactician seem likely to see the combat more like a chessboard and try to manipulate the tactical opportunities of positioning to best advantage and guide allies to those positions as an in-character option? Where is the metagaming unless it is in he abstraction itself?

I guess I don't see it and I want to understand the sense of frustration with the warlord as described so far.

 

[Kobu]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure why tactical discussion encourages metagaming?

An attack of opportunity is an abstraction, so is an area effect.. While I'll grant that some usage of some knowledge in such a situation (A character with no knowledge or experience with the fireball spell, knowing the range and radius) I don't think there is anything inherent in the discussion that is metagaming.

For starters, it rarely makes sense that a discussion of tactical minutia could be taking place among the characters in the middle of a battle. It does make sense that characters would establish general strategies and tactics, but not to the level where the players discuss exact positioning with five feet so that everyone is in range of a haste spell in two rounds.

Or take a character that just took a critical this round and wants to withdraw. It does not make sense for the wizard's player whose character is being pinned to map out the best avenue of retreat for the other player.

 

[king_ghidorah]

Those are good reasons.

Some of my reasons for discouraging table talk:

1) Speed of the game

2) Your characters are not omniscient in regards to the battlefield

3) It tends to take players out of character

4) As DM, I don't optimize enemy tactics--they make mistakes just like the PCs do

My impression of the warlord is that it will slow things down to the point where it will negate the time saving benefits of set powers, the character will behave as though he is omniscient, a lot of things he does will be too complex to run in character, and I will need to respond to his tactics in a like way to keep the encounters balanced.

I see some of this, even if I don't see the items as issues in the way play has been at my table.

The issues of character "omniscience" and in-character action run into several problems, though-- including character knowledge vs. player knowledges (e.g., the character is a skilled military vet, but the player is a 14 year old nerd in a basement) and representation (e.g., what could the character actually intuit in a real situation vs. what the DM chooses to stress and the player asks about). In the end, this is a matter of table rules and culture, and concerns about this make sense in the context of individual groups.

I see where the idea of a warlord's powers could be a concern on these grounds, but the powers I see are about small shifts rather than massive repositioning and optimization of position -- more moving people in and out in a sort of tag-team fashion or sliding nearby characters into slightly better positions and coordinating charges rather than dropping people into carefully considered combat positions.

 

[king_ghidorah]

For starters, it rarely makes sense that a discussion of tactical minutia could be taking place among the characters in the middle of a battle. It does make sense that characters would establish general strategies and tactics, but not to the level where the players discuss exact positioning with five feet so that everyone is in range of a haste spell in two rounds.

Or take a character that just took a critical this round and wants to withdraw. It does not make sense for the wizard's player whose character is being pinned to map out the best avenue of retreat for the other player.

But does it make sense for the wizard to hit the opponent with a spell under the direction of the party tactician to create a distraction that will let a colleague to make a tactical retreat?

 

[Kobu]

I don't really follow this as a direct correlation. But to play devil's advocate, wouldn't an expert tactician seem likely to see the combat more like a chessboard and try to manipulate the tactical opportunities of positioning to best advantage and guide allies to those positions as an in-character option? Where is the metagaming unless it is in he abstraction itself?

I guess I don't see it and I want to understand the sense of frustration with the warlord as described so far.

I'm OK with setting up opportunities and such. I am against encouraging tactical discussion around the table, and I am led to believe by the article that that is the intent with the warlord. It may be a fine distinction.

Some discussion is going to come up, and if there's a way that it could happen in character or it is reasonable that the characters would not make obvious mistakes the players make, I am OK with it. I can see the warlord's powers though easily leading to the long debates that happen in miniatures gaming. I happen to like miniatures gaming and am very good at it, but I don't really want that mixing in with D&D to any great extent. What can the warlord come up with in six seconds and execute? Great, go with that. Don't spend ten minutes figuring out how to avoid one attack of opportunity or how everyone else should move to set up your next power.

 

[king_ghidorah]

I'm OK with setting up opportunities and such. I am against encouraging tactical discussion around the table, and I am led to believe by the article that that is the intent with the warlord. It may be a fine distinction.

Some discussion is going to come up, and if there's a way that it could happen in character or it is reasonable that the characters would not make obvious mistakes the players make, I am OK with it. I can see the warlord's powers though easily leading to the long debates that happen in miniatures gaming. I happen to like miniatures gaming and am very good at it, but I don't really want that mixing in with D&D to any great extent. What can the warlord come up with in six seconds and execute? Great, go with that. Don't spend ten minutes figuring out how to avoid one attack of opportunity or how everyone else should move to set up your next power.

Ah. Light bulb over head. I see the train of concerns here.

Hard to see how much the movement powers of the warlord will lead to this sort of picking at minutiae at this point, but I can see this concern. Not sure that what I see so far will lead to this, but if the Warlord has five or more shifting powers, maybe this might be more of a concern. I guess it depends on the specifics, but something to think about.

Thanks for spending some time spelling out your concerns. Helps me understand where you are coming from.