Tactical arguments and how to avoid them

[ThirdWizard]

Unfortunately, if we go with the diplomacy check, I think my character has the highest diplomacy before rolling, and I don't think people really want me planning our tactics.

You could just attempt to sway people away from or toward other people's ideas.

The way we generally do it is that everyone picks a side who wants to. Then those people roll Diplomacy checks, the highest one swaying the others toward their tactics over the others. This is all voluntary, as well, so if one character really has something against one tactic, they aren't forced or compelled to do it, but generally everyone agrees to go with the most convincing character, though they might complain or bring up "I told you so's" later.

EDIT: I should point out that this is only when there isn't a definate leader. And, the leader can change depending on the situation. For example, if we're doing something for my paladin's church, he's the de facto leader and everyone has to do what he says (we're all Lawful) regardless of the circumstances. If we're doing something for someone else's affiliation, they're the leader.

 

[Umbran]

Does anyone have any ideas how to get around this problem? I'm probably not going to become a tactical genius anytime in the near future, and I'm a player, not a GM. How do other groups keep arguments about tactics from bogging down the game?

My usual answer to tactical arguments is "if the characters cannot discuss it at length, neither can the players". That limits tactical arguments to the planning stage - once the fight is on, generally characters don't have time or opportunity to discuss options at length, because the enemy isn't going to stop and wait for them to decide.

If the discussion is going on outside combat... well, the character's life and death can depend upon plans, so it isn't odd they'd want to take a while. However, when other players and/or characters start getting bored... they leave the discussion, just like real people would. The tactical masterminds can go and talk until they are blue in the face. In the meantime, I work with the other players and allow them to do things.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

I would only make the people who have tactics in mind make the diplomacy roll. The highest roll sways those who don't have tactics AND don't have a preference to his idea. The others with tactical options may still think that their tactics are best, but they realize that they weren't able to sway the others.

For example, at a 6 person table, 3 of the people have differing ideas on what they want to do. Player 4 likes player 2's idea, but players 5 and 6 have no opinion (and don't readily want to side with player 4). Players 1, 2 and 3 roll a diplomacy check. The highest roll sways players 5 and 6 to their side.

The tacticians' players are not directly affected by the check, so their characters aren't forced to change their opinions. The player who had a preference isn't forced to change his mind. The three players who don't have tactical ideas aren't forced to be the tactician.

Just an idea... (oh, and this is more for "out of battle" type discussion - in battle, the limited time also limits the tactics, so those who have the tactics are usually better off shouting a brief instruction and worrying about themselves)

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Two parts:

1) as others have said, the DM needs to limit time for debate within combat (some should be allowed, the characters may be better tacticians than the players, so one shouldn't overly rush a player).

2) Decide for yourself what to do. Don't listen to suggestions at all and do what you feel is right.

 

[ThirdWizard]

2) Decide for yourself what to do. Don't listen to suggestions at all and do what you feel is right.

Works for "kick in the door" play, but not so much for a group that wants to pull off anything complicated.

 

[Glyfair]

My usual answer to tactical arguments is "if the characters cannot discuss it at length, neither can the players". That limits tactical arguments to the planning stage - once the fight is on, generally characters don't have time or opportunity to discuss options at length, because the enemy isn't going to stop and wait for them to decide.

But there are possible other situations.

For example, sniffles admits to being hopeless with tactics. If the character isn't supposed to be hopeless at tactics, I wouldn't mind a more tactical player making suggestions. It shouldn't devolve into the argument level, but certainly could be more than reasonably discussed in combat (since it's representing sniffle's character's knowledge, not actual tactical discussion).

 

[frankthedm]

If the players fail to make plans before battle, fail to use tactics in battle or give away thier tactics by speaking in a language thier foes understand, they get killed. This is my #1 source of character death.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Since you don't seem to be terribly concerned with who makes the decisions, only with how long they take and the process of making them... You could just pick someone who regularly makes decisions that you like and then follow their advice, regardless of what anyone else says...

Later
silver

 

[lonesoldier]

If the players fail to make plans before battle, fail to use tactics in battle or give away thier tactics by speaking in a language thier foes understand, they get killed. This is my #1 source of character death.

Same here. Failure to plan is planning for failure.

My group (in RL) has some basic strategies planned in advance. ("Fall back and use ranged weapons," "Cover the casters," "Charge!") The party leader generally gives the order, but everyone knows what they are doing... more or less...

 

[LostSoul]

Go to the bathroom.

If they're still arguing when you get back, tell them that they are literally boring the crap out of you. Ask them to consider your feelings (and any other people's who are bored) when they argue, and if they could keep it down to a few minutes.

If they keep arguing for longer than is reasonable, split up the group.