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

[Morrus]

I pretty much see as the the player conversation abstractly representing what, to an experienced adventurer, is rapid and appropriate tactical decision making. The players don't have the ability to react instantly and reflexively to a developing situation; the characters, on the other hand, do.

I'd feel it a little unfair to demand that the players be able to mimic the capabilities of their characters. Players can't cast spells, dual-wield weapons, defeat dragons in combat, etc. - and neither can they act instinctively like a tactically trained SWAT team.

They're merely talking through subsconscious decision-making processes that their vastly more combat-experienced and capable characters are able to perform instinctively in a split second.

 

[KarinsDad]

I pretty much see as the the player conversation abstractly representing what, to an experienced adventurer, is rapid and appropriate tactical decision making. The players don't have the ability to react instantly and reflexively to a developing situation; the characters, on the other hand, do.

I'd feel it a little unfair to demand that the players be able to mimic the capabilities of their characters. Players can't cast spells, dual-wield weapons, defeat dragons in combat, etc. - and neither can they act instinctively like a tactically trained SWAT team.

They're merely talking through subsconscious decision-making processes that their vastly more combat-experienced and capable characters are able to perform instinctively in a split second.

I think this is an over-rationalization of a decision to play the game in a given manner.

Either a given player knows his PC's capabilities, or he does not. Either he knows the rules, or he does not. Either he understand the capabilities of the other PCs, or he does not. Or some set of middle ground on these. A player can make an excellent decision without a committee meeting.

I'm not saying that all tactical decisions need to be made in a vacuum, but I think that it is not unreasonable to put limits on the cross table talk.

Let each player play his own PC.

The idea that members of the group should comment on or suggest the actions of each PC infers that a player shouldn't be roleplaying (and tactical decisions are a form of roleplaying) his PC without advice from his fellow players. I don't buy this model.

I prefer the model where everyone does what he wants to do (including the possibility of a quick in character command or suggestion on a PC's turn) and the players find out through experience of playing with each other how to be tactically capable. It's not always unfun to have someone jump in front of your area effect, forcing your PC to either include that PC in the blast, or come up with an alternative idea. This also encourages the players to have the PCs interact verbally with each other in combat:

"Florin you idiot! You jumped in front of my shot."

This level of roleplaying is mostly lost if the group can cross table talk tactical decisions whenever they want.


Also, even though the PCs have these abilities doesn't imply that they actually know how to use them together as a team effectively. That's a desired goal, but that doesn't mean that they have this skill. Cross table talk by definition gives them a teamwork quality that the group did not gain by adventuring and hence the players learning.

 

[Morrus]

I think this is an over-rationalization of a decision to play the game in a given manner.

Either a given player knows his PC's capabilities, or he does not. Either he knows the rules, or he does not. Either he understand the capabilities of the other PCs, or he does not. Or some set of middle ground on these. A player can make an excellent decision without a committee meeting.

I'm not saying that all tactical decisions need to be made in a vacuum, but I think that it is not unreasonable to put limits on the cross table talk.

Let each player play his own PC.

The idea that members of the group should comment on or suggest the actions of each PC infers that a player shouldn't be roleplaying (and tactical decisions are a form of roleplaying) his PC without advice from his fellow players. I don't buy this model.

I prefer the model where everyone does what he wants to do (including the possibility of a quick in character command or suggestion on a PC's turn) and the players find out through experience of playing with each other how to be tactically capable. It's not always unfun to have someone jump in front of your area effect, forcing your PC to either include that PC in the blast, or come up with an alternative idea. This also encourages the players to have the PCs interact verbally with each other in combat:

"Florin you idiot! You jumped in front of my shot."

This level of roleplaying is mostly lost if the group can cross table talk tactical decisions whenever they want.

:shrug: We all prefer different things. I can only describe my own preferences.

 

[KarinsDad]

:shrug: We all prefer different things. I can only describe my own preferences.

Of course. I just pointed out that you made an in game rationalization that does not necessary fit (e.g. why exactly are these PCs suppose to be tactical experts in character?).


I also don't understand the preference of group decision making over individual decision making (given a choice of the two, granted, some middle ground would probably be preferable) in a game.

The latter empowers each player, the former discourages each player (who is going to go through with their original plan when the other players point out all its flaws?).

I understand the concept in real world conflicts where a military group needs one voice barking orders and everyone is expected to obey, but a) this is a game, and b) that's effectively what happens with a group mind anyway. People who do their own thing against the wishes of the group are considered non-team players (you see this in real world workplaces as well where the most vocal members of a group mind make group decisions for everyone else).

Granted, group decision making does often come up with better overall decisions, but is that the real goal of playing your PC? To make the best tactical decisions?


And like I said, an in character suggestion is fine. That's roleplaying. A group discussion, that's playing chess as a team. IMO. Obviously, YMMV.

 

[Saeviomagy]

If your reasoning behind limiting in-combat chatter is realism, then you're being silly. Realistically the characters are going to be yelling out "24, 10, hut" and the plan will fall together. They train and adventure together 24 hours a day for weeks at a time. If they mess up, they don't just lose a game, they die. And so do their loved ones and people who depend on them. Even the most frivolous character is going to get into a groove with people that he hangs with for that amount of time and under those circumstances.

If, on the other hand, you're trying to do it because combat is dragging, or because one player is trying to play the other players characters for them, then more power to you. In this situation it's best to simply try hurrying things on or having a chat with problem players, and only move on to hard and fast rules if that doesn't work.

 

[STAT]

I also don't understand the preference of group decision making over individual decision making (given a choice of the two, granted, some middle ground would probably be preferable) in a game.

The latter empowers each player, the former discourages each player (who is going to go through with their original plan when the other players point out all its flaws?).

I think you pretty much answered your own question there. Why would anyone prefer group decision making? Because it helps you from going through with your original crappy plan. I mean, yeah, who would go through with their original plan when it sucks? That seems like a pretty logical reason to change your plan. I know when someone points out a flaw in a prospective action of mine ingame it's usually because I'm about to do something stupid.

Honestly, from the way you're talking you seem to have this idea that if people can give each others suggestions that it'll turn into one person running the show. Anyone who doesn't follow orders will then shamed and berated until they make the correct move. I don't think that that's something that necessarily follows from allowing people to strategize out of character.

I'll say it is certainly a possibility that an unhelpful dynamic like that could arise in a group. However, I don't think that's as much an indictment of that style of play as it is something people should be cautious of if they pursue it.

 

[Trebor62]

Group decision can be fun if its a cooperative group. Everyone is in the game all the time not just on there turn. There is a lot of fun in planing clever sencronized moves, and then there is suspense of a waiting on the die rolls to see if it comes off or misses.

If its a bullying or overbaring player dominating the group then an anti group think stance by the DM could be a very good way to handle it.

Like wise if the Group think drives the DM crazy and spoils his fun its a problem, that needs to be compromised. On the other hand the DM could get involved as well; Hey guys should the Minotaur risk the fighters Oppurtunity attack to charge the bloodied Sorcerer? This could even be a good way for a tactical weak DM to improve his game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You'd let a player solicit advice from other players, or let a player offer suggestions if another seemed stuck, so that the PC isn't limitted to the player's native ability. You don't expect the player of the Fighter to be able to actually swing a spiked chain around, or the wizard player to cast actual spells (nor have even a passing familiarity with the occult), why expect each player to have the tactical acumen and split-second timing of a seasoned adventurer? It's a game, not a simulation - well, at least, this edition, it is more a game, and less a simulation.

 

[Rothe_]

Group decisions also help when the players don't know the rules well. I think that allowing newbies to discuss tactics a bit more will help them to learn the rules and the powers of the other characters - the PC's do know about each others tactics and powers in most groups.

So, give more time for new players and players with new characters.

For experienced gamers with PC's that have been in their control for a long time, you can give time limits or just cut the chatter when you feel its been long enough.

Someone mentioned the DM having an advantage when readying actions and such. I feel that actually the players are the ones with the advantage when the players are experienced, since all reasonable outcomes are analyzed quite fast and there are often 4-5 minds vs. one DM. As a DM, I don't use a lot of time for the monsters turns for game play reasons, so there is not so much time to think about all the tactical options. I do try to figure out some basic strategies before the session for my most important encounters, but situations vary fast.

 

[eamon]

Someone mentioned the DM having an advantage when readying actions and such. I feel that actually the players are the ones with the advantage when the players are experienced, since all reasonable outcomes are analyzed quite fast and there are often 4-5 minds vs. one DM. As a DM, I don't use a lot of time for the monsters turns for game play reasons, so there is not so much time to think about all the tactical options. I do try to figure out some basic strategies before the session for my most important encounters, but situations vary fast.

That was me. In my experience it's much much easier as DM (I both DM and play). There's a few factors contributing here.

• There's the ease of coordination - no miscommunication or different priorities or interpretations. In combat, most parties suffer from the "let's split up!" syndrome to some extent whereby each player focuses on what they perceive to be the optimal target. Focused fire is however, very valuable, and so while you try that, it's just easier for one person to pull off.
• Initiative issues: often many monsters share the same initiative. This makes planning easier.
• Power issues: the PCs have many, many more powers. Particularly, they invariably don't know all of each others powers perfectly; so they'll forget the limitations or abilities of each others characters. Typically, say, it's easy for the rogue to forget that the Avenger isn't a great flanking buddy because OoE means the Avenger isn't as free to choose is square as seems - and thus make false assumptions. Or ask for (and plan around!) a power that is actually a sub-par option, so that things turn out differently than hoped. Even for their own PC's, they simply need to make much more complex choices than the DM (save this daily power for another fight or use it now? - the DM's just always uses up all abilities)
• Preparation. The DM fights largely the same party each time. He roughly knows what to expect and it's easy to make natural tactical choices. Also, because the PC's have such a broad range of powers, it's often simply less important what the DM does; they'll have some power that's good for the situation. By contrast the same does not hold the other way around; the player's don't know their enemies strengths, and even if the PC's managed good knowledge checks, combat is complex and they're likely to miss a few implications. They are forced to absorb new information and rethink tactics constantly. That trap there? The DM knew it was coming, and even if he plays the monster as if it didn't, it still means the DM can think about it faster.
• Pressure: the DM doesn't actually play to win. It's OK for some of his monsters to just "charge into the fray" even though it's obviously a stupid thing to do and will get them killed. The PC's need to balance that role-playing aspect with actual sane tactics too. There's not much risk for a DM; no much need to be careful to avoid making a tactically stupid mistake in a dramatic moment - 'cause if you do, well, there's always another encounter.
• Oh, and not to be forgotten, fervor . At least with our games, the DM is often the most "into" D&D and the ongoing game in particular. It's his world, his campaign, his story; he's often invested more of himself to get it working well than the players.

When the playing field is more balanced the tables may turn - such as when the PC's are fighting well known enemies in common terrain. But in a typical dungeon crawl with some interesting terrain, the game is set up to keep things dynamic for the PC's and require them to think on their feet, while it's made to keep the DM's job as straightforward and prepare-able as possible. And that's largely how it works out.

Edit: Right, actually the point I'm trying to make is that the tactics on the PC's side are much more complex during combat and it's normal for them to need much more time than the DM ;-).