[sblock=ooc]
It is difficult, if not impossible, to facilitate this level of efficacy without some level of direct communication.
[/sblock]
[sblock=OOC]
Ok, this is the last post I will make on this because I do understand that different people find fun in different ways and I don't want to drag the thread here either.
Several points:
1) I believe that this "It is difficult, if not impossible" claim here is mostly inaccurate.
evilbob could write:
"Jarren, Capture Jaws on the Dwarf" and then motions to the spot just behind the dwarf.
This gives Antithetist nearly as much information as the direct communication option, but it's in character. This option also has the advantage of possible miscommunication because the game isn't Chess. Antithetist could misinterpret which square Susan wanted him to have the companion go to.
Tactics are not absolute, so if Antithetist does decide to follow evilbob's suggestion and doesn't pick the exact square that evilbob was thinking of, it's probably not going to hurt the game overall and it really isn't going to hurt the tactics too much either. In fact, without evilbob explaining his rationale, Antithetist might come up with a better idea on where to move that he wouldn't have come up with by following evilbob's suggestion to the letter of the law.
2) This is my number one reason for limited OOC tactics. I want every player to have fun. I'm a firm believer in having each player
play their own PC. I've seen quite a few games over the years where the players who are experts in the game mechanics partially browbeat other players into doing specific actions in the name of "efficient tactics".
Playing your own PC is harder to do when other players "out of turn" make detailed suggestions. It's worse when the suggestions are OOC and to the nth degree of detail and probably tactically superior. Even without realizing it, other players can feel pressured to follow those suggestions.
Grys has made suggestions as well. In character. But they were generic. For example:
"Everyone but Susan, take the Chain Hobgoblins out first.".
This is a general suggestion. It is in character and it suggests that certain PCs do certain things. People might feel compelled to follow the suggestion, but again, might not. The pressure to move to exact squares and use exact powers are not included in this suggestion. The tactical purpose was to increase the groups action economy by taking out the foes that could do three attacks per round before the ones that could do two attacks per round.
It's one thing to ask another player to follow a certain general course of action or ask him to use a specific power once in a while, it's totally another to suggest the other PC's exact actions for a round OOC. YMMV.
3) When suggestions are made In Character as opposed to Out of Character, the other PCs can respond In Character. It's extremely difficult to talk in character about a suggestion if the suggestion is OOC. It's not roleplaying to have telepathy about what other PCs are thinking.
For example, if Grys would have asked everyone to take out the chain hobgoblins out in detail OOC, then Mythra couldn't have responded with:
I don't recall anyone electing you as party leader!.
This roleplaying is lost if the PCs are not communicating in character.
Note: some players also write down what their PC is thinking "In Character". For example, "Thundarr thinks the strange Cleric is evil". This is a real bad roleplaying habit as well IMO. Communicated PC thoughts should be out loud. Otherwise, they shouldn't be communicated.
4) In 30+ years of gaming, I have rarely seen this level of communication at a table game. An occasional "flank that guy", or "that guy is bloodied, attack him", or "you'll need to move in these squares to avoid Opportunity Attacks" can occur. But, asking a player to move to specific squares and to use specific powers is a bit extreme. I have rarely seen that at a table game.
5) This point here is rules important. If a PC has telepathy, the player should be allowed to use that power. Without that type of power, doing these types of tactics telepathically is giving the PCs a power that they do not have. I don't think PCs should get intra-PC telepathy for free. To me, OOC tactics is the same as breaking the telepathy rules. The players who build PCs with telepathy are the only players who should get this privilege. IMO.
6) In every game I have played, there is the chance of "Aw shoot, you totally ruined what I was going to do for my PC". It happened in my Pathfinder game yesterday when the Ranger moved up to attack some foes off to one side that my Wizard was going to cast Web on. This "the other PC did something unexpected" element of the game is fun. I now have to react to the changed situation. This fun "have to handle the unexpected from other PCs" doesn't happen as often if the PCs discuss their tactics ahead of time OOC in detail.
7) And finally, if several players are more comfortable discussing specific OOC tactics, they can PM each other and have all of the discussions they want. This allows those two or three players to go nuts on tactics while not imposing OOC detailed tactics on the rest of the players.
Personally, I think everyone should go out of their way to roleplay their PCs and to roleplay tactical suggestions. This adds to roleplaying instead of subtracting from it. But, I do understand that other players want to take the short cuts and turn the game into a game of Chess so that their PCs "win the encounter efficiently". That can be fun, but it's fun at the expense of the players who want to roleplay PC interactions. IMO.
[/sblock]
[/sblock]
