Do you let your players...?

[s/LaSH]

DMs get to make a world. PCs could at least discuss group tactics before their sessions. Why do you think the X-Men are so effective? It's becaus they spend all their time playing video g- I mean, running simulations in the Danger Room. On a lesser level, players should consider group tactics in between sessions while their DM is statting city blocks full of monsters for them.

Make sense?

 

[S'mon]

Re: Re: Do you let your players...?

This makes me think that some kind of rules should be implemented for spell-casters trying to place area-effect spells at exact locations. Like, maybe this should be based on a skill, and if the skill check is failed, then the spell's center point should be moved by one 5-foot square for each number that the check was missed by. (The direction would be determined randomly.)

I generally make the Sorcerer make Spellcraft rolls for precise placement of area-effect spells, eg if he wants to fireball the enemy front rank without catching his own front rank, that'd be around DC 20 or so, depending on circumstances.

Edit: I see Tallarn said it first.

I use circa DC 20 is for fairly difficult tasks, DC 15 for moderate tasks, DC 10 for easy tasks.

Generally, the centre of placement won't be more than 5' or so off unless there's a critical fail or it's being cast at long range (over 100').

 

[S'mon]

Edit: I agree with Hong (omg!!!) that if you need to hit a precise target, you make a ranged touch attack - AIR it says so in the rules, anyway, for eg firing a fireball through an arrow slit. The spellcraft check is for knowing eg the radius of the fireball's effect on the battlefield, given its placement of its centre within a particular 5'x5' area. Basically the thing that in NWN you have to eyeball (my NWN fighter PCs are always getting flambeed by the party's own wizard/sorc, *sigh*).

 

[rexartur]

While allowed, I try to not give the players TOO long for this sort of thing. However, they all know that if the baddies understand what they're saying, then they are privvy to the same discussion

 

[Zarthon]

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.

I'm the same, I let my players discuss pretty much anything they want, from how they are going to enter a room to where to place the fireball.

 

[Zappo]

I allow it... after all the characters are certainly more expert than the players, so a bit of tactical advice is reasonable. If I see that it gets out of control, I'll lift one hand and start counting from five to zero, pulling down one finger at a time. It usually gets things going.

 

[Tsyr]

I'm fine with it.

1) The players aren't the character... The player hasn't been slinging fireballs around, he might not think in the correct fashion. The character has.

2) Players often just don't see fairly obvious things that their character would have.

3) Most spellcasters (Except clerics) are supposed to be pretty damn smart. They need help.

4) It's a game. My players are my friends... we're there to have fun.

 

[rijeagle]

One thing I've noticed never really mentioned here is how long some of these groups have been together. If a group has only been together a short period of time, OOC should be allowed.

In the case of our group, we've been together for several years and play off of each others actions, usually with little OOC. In major encounters, i.e. the Grande Finale; the players get together without the DM around prior to beginning the encounter and put a plan together for the first couple rounds, sort of like the NFL coaches scripting their first 15 plays in a game. The DM plays off of their actions trying to disrupt their 'plan', and allows OOC for adjustments.

Not all of the players know the rules like one or two of us do, so OOC is allowed. Role-playing and 'insubstantial voices of thinking' can be mingled together. If the fireball goes off, and a couple of the party members get scorched, so be it as premeasuring exactly from point to point is not allowed, so accidental actions do occur, and sometimes it can be good comic relief.

The DM can quietly plot around the OOC, using it to his advantage against the players, opening up several more options and actions and reactions. In my opinion, OOC can be one of the biggest tools to go against the players, you know what they are doing before they do it and can plan or adjust accordingly.

I myself take turns DMing and playing with another member of our group, and although we have different DMing styles, we both allow OOC, and role-playing is still a huge part of our group! I see both sides of it, and it works to both side's advantage, not just one.

All in all it is a game, and it should be played as a game. If OOC is not allowed, and a player is getting ridiculed or picked on for 'stupid character actions', is this a game for him anymore? Let it be a game, where fun is fun. We play games to escape the rigidity of the real world, namely work.

 

[S'mon]

The DM can quietly plot around the OOC, using it to his advantage against the players, opening up several more options and actions and reactions. In my opinion, OOC can be one of the biggest tools to go against the players, you know what they are doing before they do it and can plan or adjust accordingly.

This is very true - it seems a bit unfair though to alter NPC tactics based on what you know the PCs have planned!
I try not to do this if at all possible. Sometimes though, certain hideously smart players (you know who I mean, Tallarn!) point out something that seems so blindingly obvious I should have thought of it already. If I do have to make any adjustments though, I'll be sure to factor it in to the XP awards. The one thing I'll do very occasionally is increase the amount of magic items the enemy NPCs have, in advance of the encounter, if it's something I think on reflection they logically ought to have. Since the victorious PCs stand to gain the magic items if successful, that seems reasonably fair.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Aw, my DM thinks I'm hideously smart. I'm embarrassed now.

I presume it's not just me, but me and Leo you're talking about. This is a man who, just before we're about to assault the palace of the Overlord Tarkane blah blah blah, drops helpful hints to the DM like "You can't dim door into a room with many bits of string dangling down from the ceiling, because there isn't any free space". Thanks, give him more ideas to work with...

Um, I don't know if that's actually true, by the rules, by the way. Let's not hijack the thread any more than it already is! Sorry.