Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 4979844" data-attributes="member: 51942">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.</blockquote>

Verification