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

[DNH]

(I will admit that this is not strictly 4e-specific, but that's the game we play atm.)

As the DM for our 4e group, I have a slight problem with the sometimes meticulously considered and executed combat manoeuvres carried out by the players. We continuously get a volley of "If you go there, then I ..." - "But I could use this if ..." - "Don't do that because I am going to ..." and it winds me up most of the time. I have tried saying things like "Guys, come on. It's only a six-second combat round; there's no time for such meticulous planning." I haven't tried this one but I could rule that their instructions to each other are perforce spoken aloud and so the foes will hear them and react accordingly.

I am sort of in two (or more) minds about this. I understand that the PCs generally need some advantage and the ability to coordinate their efforts gives them this. I can also (largely) accept that the planning we see at the table does not necessarily translate to the battlefield (so a plan of actions discussed between the players may well become a shouted command from one character). Also, I am more of the narrativist school than the simulationist one, so I am not sure that clamping down on these instructions in the interests of verisimilitude is precisely what I am after.

Still, I also want to speed my game along if I can. And I *do* think that my players overstep what is acceptable sometimes.

What do you guys do? Any thoughts?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Talk to your players. Tell them you think that decision making is taking too long. I like to enforce turns only taking a few seconds before some action is taken. A shouted suggestion is fine but a back and forth discussion will result in an initiative delay for those involved. Do your players stay focused on the action or are they in thier own little universe until its thier turn? Find out why it takes so long before trying a fix. Do the players ever discuss tactics outside of combat?

 

[cmbarona]

/snip
Do the players ever discuss tactics outside of combat?

This is a fantastic question to ask, because if they're a dedicated group of adventurers, I can guarantee that the characters would discuss tactics outside of combat. After a level up, it might be fun to discuss the new tricks/spells/prayers everyone has been engineering/studying/contemplating, etc. in character. This could be especially important with any tactically-minded characters. For example, in the game I play, we have two rogues: one specializes in finding Combat Advantage on his own. Thus, my Warlord would know that he has less need to flank with him than the other.

There are plenty of ways to incorporate character roleplaying into player tactics. As you mentioned, I would definitely consider tactical discussions something that actually happens in combat. Let the players know, too. They may surprise you with their ingenuity and creativity.

 

[DNH]

Tell them you think that decision making is taking too long.

There are, in fact, two issues here for me. One is that, yes, the whole decision-making process is taking too long and so subsequently bloating the encounters (we manage two good encounters in a 3-4 hour session). The second issue is the realism of it all. The whole round, not just each individual's turn, occurs over six seconds, but the players are planning things out like Grand Masters of chess each time. It's a difficult thing to adjudicate though.

 

[DNH]

Do the players ever discuss tactics outside of combat?

No, I don't believe they do. Not that I recall.

 

[Jack99]

I run 20 seconds turns. Ie, whenever a player's turn comes up, I start the timer. If he hasn't stated what he does, he uses an at-will at the nearest target. It helps keeping it more "real" according to my players. It also makes for quicker combats.

 

[eamon]

There are, in fact, two issues here for me. One is that, yes, the whole decision-making process is taking too long and so subsequently bloating the encounters (we manage two good encounters in a 3-4 hour session). The second issue is the realism of it all. The whole round, not just each individual's turn, occurs over six seconds, but the players are planning things out like Grand Masters of chess each time. It's a difficult thing to adjudicate though.

The difference being that the PC's presumably know their abilities backwards and forwards, and will be practiced (and have discussed) tactically. Players on the other hand may sit together once every week or two for an evening, and commonly make grave interpretation errors, oversights, of fail to take into account knowledge the PC's may well have.

If you look an most team sports, basic tactics are obviously largely ingrained and often communicated by actions, not words. That's never going to work at a game table; talking about it is a poor simulation thereof.

In short, I don't there's a fundamental plausibility issue here - this is a gameplay issue. Some types of tactics even after much discussion are going to be performed worse, others better. Notably, the DM probably has the largest advantage here; if he wants two creatures to cooperate (e.g. to both get flanking), this typically works whereas it's commonly harder to pull off for PC's since it would involve readied actions for a minor benefit.

So, if it's a gameplay issue, then treat it like one: don't object to discussion of tactics perse, but object to the overall time it takes. Use a timer if needed. Encourage people to make quick decisions by not penalizing them if they do something incredibly stupid due to some oversight - better the average turn is decent but imperfect and that you get a take-back now and then than that everyone always overthinks everything. If you or a player forget an effect (whoops, I couldn't have actually done that, I was prone...), don't redo the turn, but just try to approximately adjudicate the difference on the spot.

 

[ExploderWizard]

There are, in fact, two issues here for me. One is that, yes, the whole decision-making process is taking too long and so subsequently bloating the encounters (we manage two good encounters in a 3-4 hour session). The second issue is the realism of it all. The whole round, not just each individual's turn, occurs over six seconds, but the players are planning things out like Grand Masters of chess each time. It's a difficult thing to adjudicate though.

Start enforcing a decision within a reasonable time. If discussion continues just say "delay" and move down the initiative chart. When the last creature has acted for the round give the delayed players a last chance to act then start the next round. I guarantee that it will only take 1 time of the monsters beating on them twice in a row for them to react to combat as furious action rather than a chess match.

 

[Mahali]

Thats one of the advantages to a turn based system without time limits. In our regular game most of us play D&D for tactics than role-playing. For heavy role-playing we switch games.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Our rule is that when it gets to be your turn, you have to act (within say, 20 seconds), or you have automatically delayed until you tell your DM what your character wants to do.

You can do all your planning you want outside your own initiative. If you have a plan, you should try to inform the other characters so they don't foul your plan.

The biggest problem we have is when the healer doesn't heal and a bloodied characters doesn't say he is bloodied.

Another rule we have is that the GM has one backtrack, and the players have one backtrack per combat. This also speeds up things.