How meticulous can the planning be in a six-second combat round?

[KarinsDad]

You'd let a player solicit advice from other players, or let a player offer suggestions if another seemed stuck, so that the PC isn't limitted to the player's native ability. You don't expect the player of the Fighter to be able to actually swing a spiked chain around, or the wizard player to cast actual spells (nor have even a passing familiarity with the occult), why expect each player to have the tactical acumen and split-second timing of a seasoned adventurer?

This reasoning is flawed.

The ability to actually fight has zip, zilch, nada to do with making good tactical decisions in a game.

This is done with experience and knowledge "of playing the game", not with actual real life experience and knowledge fighting.


There is nothing wrong with experienced players helping out new players, but the DM should not let that get out of hand. There is nothing wrong with a player making an in character suggestion to another player on the first players turn.

I just think that every player should typically be allowed to make their own decisions without the group mind picking it apart or shouting out suggestions or whatever on that player's turn.

If a group decides, no, they want to table talk, that's ok for that group. As a DM though, I discourage it. I want the players to make their suggestions in character, not out of character. I want the players to make their suggestions on their turn, not out of turn.

I think this enables every player at the table to make their own decisions, to learn from mistakes, to expand as players, and to exalt in their successes without being tactical slaves of the more forceful and possibly more experienced players.

When the group mind makes the decision, the successes are not as individual and not as sweet for the player.

Note: there is nothing wrong with a little table talk. It's inevitable. But, it shouldn't be happening every round.


To the players who want or need to offer advice, I would say that on your turn, you get to decide for your PC. Give every other player the same opportunity and respect on their turn.

Table talk often is the result of one or two players attempting to enforce their will or their ideas on the group in the name of helping others out or in the name of better tactics. In reality, it's mostly just them trying to insert themselves into someone else's moment to shine. IMO.

Let each player shine on their own turn. It's their turn, not anyone elses.

 

[Turtlejay]

eamon has it right, the DM controls his side of the fight with the efficiency of a hive mind. Whether he means to or not, all his creeps have a working knowledge of the capabilities of their allies, something most PC's do not have. The DM *planned* the encounter (or read it ahead of time) and probably has certain actions preplanned or scripted. The PC's are reacting in real time to this. Do not expect them to equal the efficiency of the DM.

I think Karinsdad is on to something in regards to player chatter, but only in some cases. Some players do not mind back and forth suggestions. Just last session I had forgotten that my PC had a magic item (the Lucky Charm) and the cleric remembered, turning a crucial attack from a miss to a hit. I appreciated that. Crosstalk can benefit from suggestions like this. Now, if a specific person does not like the advice, it is their perogative to refuse it, or to ask not to be told how to play their character.

In *general* however, I don't think some back and forth is a bad thing, when the situation warrants it.

Jay

 

[Morrus]

Of course. I just pointed out that you made an in game rationalization that does not necessary fit (e.g. why exactly are these PCs suppose to be tactical experts in character?).

The real rationalization is that we prefer it that way. That's enough for us!

I also don't understand the preference of group decision making over individual decision making (given a choice of the two, granted, some middle ground would probably be preferable) in a game.

Well, that's what preferences are like.

Granted, group decision making does often come up with better overall decisions, but is that the real goal of playing your PC? To make the best tactical decisions?

I can't speak for anyone else (or even my own players), but as long as they are all having a good evening, we're playing correctly.

 

[KarinsDad]

I can't speak for anyone else (or even my own players), but as long as they are all having a good evening, we're playing correctly.

And that's the bottom line. Fun. Course, how do you know that the players whose ideas are being overruled are having as much fun? Obviously the OP as DM wasn't having as much fun.

 

[Morrus]

Course, how do you know that the players whose ideas are being overruled are having as much fun?

Because they're my friends and we talk to each other?

What do you mean by "overruled", anyway? I certainly wasn't suggesting that other players get to decide what someone's PC does. Just that tactical conversations in a 6-second round are perfectly OK in my book.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I think I agree w/ Karinsdad. Basically what you are encouraging is metagaming. I guess that is fine if everyone agrees and is having fun, but I thought the general consensus among gamers is that metagaming is bad. You might as well allow the players to browse the Monster Manual as they encounter different monsters. After all, the player might not know the special attacks of a black dragon or a mindflayer, but their character's should, right?

 

[Infiniti2000]

...and to exalt in their successes without being tactical slaves of the more forceful and possibly more experienced players....

This statement catches my eye and makes me think that your group has a major problem. This issue is not even a remote possibility in our group, such that I would never even contemplate some of the rules you suggest. Are you exaggerating for effect, or have some of your players in the past been turned into tactical slaves?

 

[Hellzon]

I guess that is fine if everyone agrees and is having fun, but I thought the general consensus among gamers is that metagaming is bad.

Everytime metagaming comes up, it's obvious that no two forumites agree on exactly what it is, and they don't even all agree that it's bad.

You might as well allow the players to browse the Monster Manual as they encounter different monsters. After all, the player might not know the special attacks of a black dragon or a mindflayer, but their character's should, right?

Hyperbole much, honey?

 

[KarinsDad]

Are you exaggerating for effect, or have some of your players in the past been turned into tactical slaves?

I was overemphasizing to illustrate the point.

But let me ask you a question: Does anyone in any of the groups you have ever played with frequently decide on a different power to use, or a totally different tactic (including movement) because someone else in the group talked them into it?

I like empowering the individual. I dislike metagaming. I consider table talk to be slight (not necessarily heavy) peer pressure to some players and metagaming. Especially between experienced players and less experienced players.

All groups have group dynamics where there are leaders and followers. I like empowering the followers and this is done in two ways: a) let them make their own decisions in combat, b) encourage them to roleplay more out of combat. The leaders do not need me to encourage or empower them. As DM, I feel it is more important for me to stick up for the less strong players who might not stick up for themselves.

DMs might not even notice that a player is being strongly influenced to modify his or her PCs behavior in combat (or even out of combat). Even players who make jokes and laugh about other players roleplaying are influencing current and future roleplaying.

It's just table talk. All good fun, right?

 

[KarinsDad]

What do you mean by "overruled", anyway? I certainly wasn't suggesting that other players get to decide what someone's PC does.

But don't they?

If one player says to another: "No, no, don't go that way, you'll provoke an AoO. Come around this way and then flank the devil cause that way, I can use my xyz power as well", isn't this effectively deciding what someone else's PC does?

Not directly, but it's group mind. The individual does not always make his own decisions, he relies (and maybe even becomes dependent) on the group to decide.

One reason I dislike this is because it stifles individual creativity as well. I have seen in games one player having a plan, someone else does something to ruin the plan, and then the first player being forced to adapt and coming up with something really cool instead.

Don't get me wrong. Group mind can come up with some really cool ideas as well. I just prefer those cool ideas to come about via character suggestions in character as opposed to out of character table talk where they can be analyzed and dissected, looking for weaknesses. I really prefer in character planning and decisions as opposed to out of character planning and decisions.


And, I figure that most groups are somewhere in the middle. Just not the OP's group. They lean in the opposite direction from where I lean.