Do you let your players...?

[Sullaf]

I agree, but...

When the group is discussing combat like this "well you stand in that square right there, so I can stand in this square here, we can flank the opponent there, without standing in the way of the archer, because if he has to move, he can only use one attack. Now the cleric goes on that square there, so the rogue can sneak attack that opponent there when this one falls, but wait, don't stand there. If the wizard casts fireball on the square right there, and you stand over here, the blast will not hit you..."

Well I hope I made a point there... somewhere... on a square...

 

[thundershot]

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Though maybe not that extreme... but still, that's the idea.


Chris

 

[GMVictory]

It doesn't bother me if players talk over the table.

However, if I think they are getting too nitpicky tactical or trying to pull off a realy complex plan on the fly, I will ask for Int, Spot, Listen, or any other check appropriate to portray the PCs being aware of each other and acting accordingly. Otherwise, the players can table-talk all they want.

If you are looking for ways to get them to plan before attacking or having a standard battle plan, tell them that table talk of tactics during a combat mean the characters are shouting out orders or suggestions and the opposition can hear and adjust accordingly. Make this work both ways though. Have the NPCs shout orders out for the players to counter too, don't just have them instinctively react to whatever the players do.

 

[Wormwood]

I let* the players talk about whatever they want. If they want the combat to go quickly, I notice they tend to move it along. If they want to really be effective, they tend to discuss tactics. If they want to laugh, they tell jokes.

I like that, because it's not my game, it's our game---and they're my friends, not just my players.

*I don't even like idea that I "let" them do anything. I don't have, nor do I want, that kind of authority. My job as DM consists of: Collect house rules, plan encounters, read the boxed text, make sure the rules are followed by everyone (especially myself), and do my best to outwit some very, very smart people. But mainly I just want everyone to enjoy each other's company.

 

[Churchill]

I let the players give each other advice if their characters are in a position to do so. And I "limit" the number of words... In character combat chatter is cool, OoC combat planning during someone's initiative bugs me a bit.

 

[fba827]

ooc tactical chat annoys me though I find a little bit to be okay (it's just a part of any group-centered game; if they're enjoying it, so be it -- I find that half the combat chat is the basis for our non-game time discussions of the game... so anything that people take such interest in shouldn't be denied outright).

However, a couple things to try if it starts to get out of hand

* simply point it out directly -- "you're talking a lot.. remember, you're in combat, things are moving fast. the entire round is 6 seconds, so each initiative is even less than that. so all this may be a bit much -- if you do want to share some thoughts, try and keep it brief."

*when people start talking ooc to discuss things with other people, point out that they shouldn't be because they wouldn't have a chance to discuss it in the game BUT (this is where you make yourself sound nice) since the characters have been fighting for so long and have a bit more tactical sense than we as individual players do, you can point out to other players what their own character may notice. "Hmm.. Merlin would notice that if he aimed his fireball there, he would clip the backs of his friends ..." This does try and keep players in perspective of other characters. Also, as the campaign moves on, people tend to think more in terms of their character rather than relying on other player's comments (someone only wants to hear thier friends tell them "your player would notice ...." (it starts to sound condescending after a while) so it adds to their own critical thinking rather than growing to rely on advice). basically, you let them do it, but encourage them to speak of what " [Your characters] would notice ..." when talking to other players. It adds perspective and after a while it becomes less relied upon.

The second one if my favorite when it works right -- i don't know if I explained it clearly though... apologies if it is not clear.

 

[Tonguez]

DnD is a game of abstract images - the board may be good but some people need talk in order to really visualise what the PC sees - so let the talk go its a game the DMs job is to react to and foil the players plan...

 

[questionmark]

i never ever let my players do that. in my oppinion its bad roll playing that way there falts and triumphs are on there own shoulders

 

[Larry Fitz]

There is a term of ancient and wondrous power, it's called "kibbutzing" and I don't allow it in my game. Yes the wizard may have a 22 Int but that doesn't mean he's going to be cold and calculating and totally together in a dark antechamber with half a dozen minotaur priests and fighters trying to kill him and his friends. I don't let players give tactical advice OOG during combat. If they want to discuss tactics before combat that's fine, but if Waldo wanted to be the one to place the cone of cold spell "just so", then Waldo shouldn't be playing a Paladin. My two punishments for kibbutzing are, not allowing the suggested action for at least a round (if the action was an obvious one the PC's deal with the offender in their own way) or not allowing the action at all for this combat (this is usually in response to a non obvious suggestion made by someone whose character isnot present dutring tyhe action involved) again the PC's punish such unwanted advice themselves. The main problem in allowing cross-talk of tactics during a combat is that the player with the best sense of tactics (or the strongest personality) tends to dictate the action as if they are playing chess and the other PC's are simply the pieces... bleh...

 

[TalonComics]

I hate "table-topping" but I really guess it depends on how you're running your game. If it's just a loose "let's get together and play some D&D" where the main goal is to just have fun with your friends I'm sure tabl-topping would be allowable. If you're actually trying to run a role-playing game where players are "role-playing" characters including dialogue in a realistic manner then table-topping is a big no-no. I've even seen table-topping go so far as a player who's character isn't even there was offering advice. That *really* pisses me off.

Usually, when I see any of my players table-topping I just say, "There's no way you could talk to their character that way. Remember, we're trying to role play."

~D