I don't believe we currently have any houserules. There are certainly no rules covering player conversation during play.
How meticulous can the planning be in a six-second combat round?
- Thread starter DNH
- Start date
I don't believe we currently have any houserules. There are certainly no rules covering player conversation during play.
eamon
Explorer
Or... people are describing out of character how they think their PC's sees the situation. In character, they don't need to, as they can actually hear,see and smell the battle going on around them, and appreciate the continuous, ongoing (non-verbal) cues of their fellow combatants. Out of character they do need to, since it's not that easy to get a grip on the situation.
The players play a PC once in a great while; they switch characters, they may have had a beer, and may be distracted by other things. It's absurd to presume that they must be able to make snap-judgments as well as the hero's do without even being present at the scene.
It's like expecting a John Random Doe to be able to sprint through a house blindfolded, avoiding obstacles by the description the DM gives. It's like expecting said blindfolded man to pick up on the many subtle non-verbal cues of his teammates.
Once you realize that you need extra time anyhow; how much extra time you need to communicate those cues and sensations is just a matter of a group's preference.
There's nothing wrong with keep up the tempo, but there's also nothing "house-ruled" or wrong about taking more time to work out more of the details - and yes, more of the tactical situation.
Jack99
Adventurer
In general, my players stay away from giving advice during combats. It's not that anyone minds or that we have any rules, it's just that they are too independent (stubborn) to accept advice from others (only when related to the game though). In fact, we have one player, if you suggest him to do X, you can be almost assured he does Y. Of course, a few of the smartest in the party have long since realized that, so they usually suggest him the thing they do not want him to do. 
Aside from that, the tactical talk is minimal and enforced to be done in character, so that I assume the monsters can hear whatever the players talk about. Although lately, they pretty much have Telepathic Bond all 24/7, in which case I allow to talk a bit more about things. Not that they need to. After 21 levels they have a very good grasp of each others powers and the synergy possibilities. So yeah, sleep is always followed by Thief of Five Fates (That's just a nasty combo), just like any spell/power that knocks people prone is followed by dazing attacks and vice-versa.
Aside from that, the tactical talk is minimal and enforced to be done in character, so that I assume the monsters can hear whatever the players talk about. Although lately, they pretty much have Telepathic Bond all 24/7, in which case I allow to talk a bit more about things. Not that they need to. After 21 levels they have a very good grasp of each others powers and the synergy possibilities. So yeah, sleep is always followed by Thief of Five Fates (That's just a nasty combo), just like any spell/power that knocks people prone is followed by dazing attacks and vice-versa.
Infiniti2000
First Post
Actually, no, certainly not to the point you're making and not from a metagaming perspective. It has happens in-game, in a context such as "Kill the guy with the red hat!" or "Get this thing off of me!" or "Concentrate on one enemy at a time!" Never, "Use a fireball because these things have resistance to cold 10." Absolutely never, "You shouldn't try to grab these things because that's not your most effective attack." That would be an inconceivable event in our group. Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy we have the group we have and I realize not everyone is so lucky (fwiw, we're a group of 6x 30-something comp sci geeks, 3 BSCS and 3 MSCS). I was quite honestly concerned about yours and was hoping you don't really have the problems of tactical slave drivers.
We simply don't need the rules you have created for your group. Maybe we will at some point when my boys (3 and 5) are old enough to game. But, I doubt it even then. They'll get a 'stern talking to' if I notice any inappropriate, "un-fun" behavior at the table.
Infiniti2000
First Post
I have to admit ignorance. I'm not sure what table talk means, but I'm not sure I would equate it to metagaming. Some of our best moments occur because of table talk, wherein pertinent and funny movie quotes are brought up, puns on the bad guys' names are made, etc. If anyone is actually saying that table talk = metagaming, I have to disagree. I think table talk is more innocuous than that. Tactical suggestions (not instructions), especially in character, should be encouraged IMO.
I haven't created any official rules for my group. Once in a while, I do tell one player to let another player make her own decisions when he makes an out of character suggestion for the third round in a row. But, that is not something that happens every encounter.
I discourage out of character group decision making about the encounter or skill challenge table talk, either during roleplaying or during combat. I encourage in character discussion all of the time.
Infiniti2000 said:
Well, I'm not talking about out of character jokes, puns, etc.
I'm talking about what the OP wrote about, out of character tactical discussion. A group of players dissecting the situation and coming up with the best tactics out of character for a given PC or as a combo for PCs.
That never happens in my game, but it happens in the OP's game.
Personally, I would just disallow it. It will happen a bit, especially in his game, anyway because that is how they are used to playing. I doubt it happens to his extent in most games, but even there I would ask players to knock it off.
Again, in character suggestions? Great. Repeated out of character suggestions or group discussion? Nope. An occasional out of character suggestion? Sure, as long as it doesn't get out of hand. This last one is probably inevitable at most tables.
I do consider "repeated out of character suggestions or a group discussion" to be metagaming. I wouldn't let the players do it during roleplaying and I wouldn't let the players do it during combat. If the players had a telepathic bond or something, then that's a different story. I'd still encourage them to communicate "in character" in that case.
I guess I have not encountered the degree of metagaming, or noticed it, that seems to exist in the gaming community.
Last session, for example, I announced my intentions for the next few rounds (using forced movement to split up two large enemies). Not much was said, but when, during the next few rounds, the two wizards and the cleric were trying to line up their area attacks, they were a little bugged by that decision. In my opinion, such things can be avoided by a little more table talk. If one of them had piped up and asked me to keep the two enemies a little closer together, it could have actually saved some hurt feelings, not made things worse.
In this situation, nobody really got their feelings hurt, but it is just a tiny example of why I think some amount of tactical talk is a good thing.
Jay
Last session, for example, I announced my intentions for the next few rounds (using forced movement to split up two large enemies). Not much was said, but when, during the next few rounds, the two wizards and the cleric were trying to line up their area attacks, they were a little bugged by that decision. In my opinion, such things can be avoided by a little more table talk. If one of them had piped up and asked me to keep the two enemies a little closer together, it could have actually saved some hurt feelings, not made things worse.
In this situation, nobody really got their feelings hurt, but it is just a tiny example of why I think some amount of tactical talk is a good thing.
Jay
I don't disagree, but I prefer that tactical table talk to be in character, not out of character.
Out of character, the PCs are suddenly psychic.
In character, the PCs are announcing their intentions to the monsters as well (assuming the monsters can comprehend the PCs).
It makes for a different flavor and different in game results.
Note: in my games, a monster in charge will bark out orders to his subordinates as well (if capable). If the PCs understand the language, this gives them an advantage. If a DM plays psychic monsters, then yeah, it's probably fair to have psychic PCs as well.
I feel like at least you and I are kind of on the same page here. I would prefer in character talk too (though I don't often get to DM anymore), and it would be great if it was really roleplayed up. Not, "I'm going to Tide of Iron this guy here, throw your fireball!" but "I'll force this orc over, do your worst!"
It is a little much to ask of some folks, since a lot of us have a tough time staying in character 100% of the time. I'd settle for a table of gamers following what was going on 75% of the time, and call myself lucky!
Jay
My players typically follow whats going on, but I'm sometimes lucky to get 10% roleplaying:
Player: "I ask the innkeeper for a room"
DM: "Ok, then roleplay that"
Player: Arg. Ok. "Give me a room"
DM: Sigh
Similar Threads
