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

[Morrus]

But don't they?

No.

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?

It's a suggestion. The player still chooses what he does. Basic social interaction. People talk to each other and express opinions.

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.

If he prefers it like that, that's fine.

 

[Turtlejay]

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?

Kind of a bad example, since that mechanic already exists in the core rules as monster knowledge checks. As a free action you can roll a skill check to see if your character has knowledge of the monster you are fighting, and your result tells you some useful information. Why wouldn't your Ranger with maxed Nature knowlege, representing his study of the wilds, have some knowledge of natural things?

Sorry for the Off Topic post.

Jay

 

[Morrus]

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.

We're having badwrongfun?

 

[Trebor62]

Indeed you are Sir and you shall be halled before the Naval Board of Inquiry over this matter.

Of course I will be right there with you.

 

[Stalker0]

Sounds like you have plenty of suggestions on how to reduce player thinking time, but here's one rationale and why long planning times can be okay.

Its a way to help emulate the fact your playing heroes.

More than likely you have one player in your game with a high int. but not just a high int, an int that makes Einstein shake his head. You have players that are more charismatic than some of the epic leaders in history. Faster and more agile than any human can generally hope to be.

While the party is taking 2 minutes to plan for 6 seconds, its a way to allow them to catch up to the stats of the characters they play.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

I think I agree w/ Karinsdad. Basically what you are encouraging is metagaming.

In what way is what we are describing metagaming? I don't see it.

Regarding the comments about slave-ing, here is how I responded in the one case when someone really did try to tell me I was making the wrong tactical move:

"I have my reasons."

That's all it took.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Kind of a bad example, since that mechanic already exists in the core rules as monster knowledge checks. As a free action you can roll a skill check to see if your character has knowledge of the monster you are fighting, and your result tells you some useful information. Why wouldn't your Ranger with maxed Nature knowlege, representing his study of the wilds, have some knowledge of natural things?

Sorry for the Off Topic post.

Jay

And the mechanics already exist for discussing battle plans to. It is called Free Action: Talk. If you want to offer a suggestion as to what course of action another character should take, use this mechanic. While you can Free Action: Talk out of turn (Free Actions can be used out of turn) it does limit you to only a few sentences, and the DM is within his rights to limit when a Free Action can be taken. What you can't do, is an out-and-out discussion as to what course of action to take (that would most likely be too many sentences). And of course, since it is your character's Talking, you run the risk of the opponents hearing you and counteracting.

What people are suggesting is that we ignore this rule, and pause the game, and take however much time we want to discuss a battle tactic/plan/strategy without the fear of the monsters hearing it.

Its no different than ignoring the Monster Knowledge skill check and going right to the Monster Manual to look up what a monster can do.

 

[RigaMortus2]

We're having badwrongfun?

I would say you are having fun playing a game in a manner in which some rules are ignored, house ruled, overruled by a DM, and/or just generally discouraged by other types of players.

 

[KarinsDad]

Regarding the comments about slave-ing, here is how I responded in the one case when someone really did try to tell me I was making the wrong tactical move:

"I have my reasons."

That's all it took.

For you. That's good.

Course, not everyone will stick to their guns. Some people might respond, "Ok".

Those are the people I'm trying to encourage.

 

[KarinsDad]

Sounds like you have plenty of suggestions on how to reduce player thinking time, but here's one rationale and why long planning times can be okay.

Its a way to help emulate the fact your playing heroes.

More than likely you have one player in your game with a high int. but not just a high int, an int that makes Einstein shake his head. You have players that are more charismatic than some of the epic leaders in history. Faster and more agile than any human can generally hope to be.

While the party is taking 2 minutes to plan for 6 seconds, its a way to allow them to catch up to the stats of the characters they play.

I think the fact that PCs can mow down minions in seconds, and kill dragons, and put up a wall of stone to hold back the flood and protect the town emulates them being heroes. The game options themselves give the players that.

I really don't buy the argument "In order to be heroes, we need time to talk out of character".

I can buy the argument "In order to be unflawed heroes that rarely make tactical mistakes, we need time to talk out of character".

My question is though: "Why do the PCs have to be so tactically superior?"

Do you also stop roleplaying and say "Wait a minute, the group wants to discuss this out of character on the side before continuing our delicate negotiations with the King"? You might. I've never seen that done, but people play the game different ways.