talking during combat

[DonTadow]

DonTadow, you make good points, but still there must be some compromise. Requiring at most 6 seconds of real-time and only during your turn is clearly one extreme. Allowing an unlimited amount of time is the other extreme. Different groups have different ideas on what they expect, and this is in large part due to the variety of gamers. There are groups out there who are all RL combat veterans (we used to have an special forces veteran in our group looong ago), others are groups of high schools kids (I'm old so I can call them kids), and still others, like my group, are all working professionals out of the university for 5-10 years, with kids. So, in my group, if the DM said, "Shut up, your 6 seconds is over" It would go very far because our primary purpose is to get together with friends. If one player wants to take an extra 20 seconds, heck, even 5 minutes, to look up a spell, we let him. If another players takes the extra time to extoll the virtues of Moradin in a thick Scottish brogue (and he does very well at it) for a full minute, we let him. And we enjoy every second of it.

I have seen groups that require the spellcasters to know the spells they have prepared. And I mean know. There's no looking up the spell as you cast it to make sure you have the range, etc. right, nor are there allowances for "I assume you'd know the cure light wounds is a touch spell". Yes, that's when new gamers (particularly females) quit early because they can't possibly memorize all this useless crap, nor would they want to. As any good professional knows, you can't/don't memorize everything, you have references ready.

So, the point of me rambling is to just say what I think we can all agree on, and that is that there is a middle ground and it's up to every gaming group to find there own middle ground. Don't underestimate the importance of this, though, especially with respect to new members. Really strict and rigid time constraints are HUGE turnoff for new gamers.

I'm in no ways stignent on the rules. I"m not sitting there with a timeline. And its arule i rarely have to enforce (There are a couple of players whom always try to sneak metagame tips by). I'm very lienient if it's in the spirit of good role play. I only enforce the rules when metagame role playing conversations.

There's something in my game I calll the "dramatic speech". I learned it from a DM whom did a lot of Buffy and AFMBE. It's when a player is in combat and they make a dramatic speech or conversation. I play my game out like an anime or tv show and if you ever watch those things, despite the action going around, say 100s of zombies coming at you, there are times when the cameral pans around and only focuses on those two or three individuals of the party, giving some dramatic speech or conversation. This is very popular in the Final Fantasy video games. So I allow this stuff, especially during hte climatic battles. I also don't mind if the npc says something in combat, and the pcs respond as I count this all up to good role playing and that's more important to me than combat. IN al honesty after 20 to 30 minutes of combat i encourage or incorpate something like this to break up the monatany for a bit (most of my group are heavy role players). I think its neccessary to have players look up spells, combat technqiues and occasionally monsters. Heck, for me its encouraged because that means that you have them on their toes. There are limits but I dont have a former timer anywhere in my game . If a player is rambling I have some nice wrap it up music on my computer. (it always brings for a nice laugh from the pcs).

My big gripe, and there's a lot of "personal feelings" in here from two groups I was in whom where notorious for it, is metagaming during combat. It slows the game down, it forces the uncomfortable newbie to sometimes let others play their character, it's counterproductive to role playing, it trains players to not prepare for encounters and it can suck the suspense out of a combat.

 

[LeapingShark]

With your logic though, why even go through the combat? Why role play for that matter?

Because that would not be as fun, having fun is our primary goal. If a few pauses here and there make some combats last a bit longer than others, so be it, I don't want to skip the fun parts at warp-speed. We all enjoy combat. Suspense builds when we watch a player sweating over a dilemna of options in combat; Fred the tire mechanic must decide what a tactically-perfect knight would do. If somebody starts back-seat-driving a newbie or is taking anything away from their sense of fun, then we put a stop to that immediately.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

My big gripe, and there's a lot of "personal feelings" in here from two groups I was in whom where notorious for it, is metagaming during combat. It slows the game down, it forces the uncomfortable newbie to sometimes let others play their character, it's counterproductive to role playing, it trains players to not prepare for encounters and it can suck the suspense out of a combat.

The big counter to this as I see it has been when my character has called out a command and the other character hasn't performed it out of player ineptness, the (real as I remember it) example being:

Me- "Wait for me, we'll strike together!" (I ready to 5' & attack when the other goes so we both get flanking bonuses)
Other- "Umm, sure" (moves to shortest distance to engage which does _not_ allow me to flank)
Me- "Something is going to die..."

My character had to explain post combat what I was trying to achieve but also I the player had to explain to my friend how it worked. My friends character would know how to fight in tandem but out of ease of flow concern for the combat I dropped it until afterwards.

If my character had died because of player ineptness otoh, I would not be a pleasant person to be around.

 

[Storyteller01]

A few questions, since we're talking about an environment that includes magic:

What if every member has a ring of sending; unlimited duration and usage, but only to those with another ring?

What if the players have Detect Thoughts (say a group of doppelgangers, or something similar)?

What if the group has the equivalent of a 'hivemind' ability?

Not being snarky. I'm thinking of adding sommething similar to my campaign, and I'd like some feedback. Thanks.

 

[Jhulae]

Yes, I agree with Free.

Most of the time, speech in combat can be pretty short and to the point while getting enough information out, and there's no need to restrict it to 'your turn only' if you're still quick and to the point.

For example, if it's *not* my turn, but I see a party member trying to decide where to go, I hardly find it a stretch of the imagination for my character to shout "Flank this guy with me", as my character knows how best to attack. I don't see that as metagaming in any way at all. Nor is it providing some 'comlpex battle plan'.

 

[Quasqueton]

What if every member has a ring of sending; unlimited duration and usage, but only to those with another ring?

What if the players have Detect Thoughts (say a group of doppelgangers, or something similar)?

What if the group has the equivalent of a 'hivemind' ability?

Seems this would be the perfect situation for allowing constant and immediate communication.

Quasqueton

 

[DonTadow]

Yes, I agree with Free.

Most of the time, speech in combat can be pretty short and to the point while getting enough information out, and there's no need to restrict it to 'your turn only' if you're still quick and to the point.

For example, if it's *not* my turn, but I see a party member trying to decide where to go, I hardly find it a stretch of the imagination for my character to shout "Flank this guy with me", as my character knows how best to attack. I don't see that as metagaming in any way at all. Nor is it providing some 'complex battle plan'.

But the opposite argument to that is why didn't you think about that on your turn? When I was a player and played on the only on your turn rule, I'd walk up to the enemie and shout, to the other players, "Surround this guy so I can get his guts (rogue with sneak attack), it was a popular catchphrase. "
If someone wants to help me then they will help me. From you, free and shark's perspective the mode can lead to metagaming and players playing someone elses character. That's the big part of the "only on your own turn spill". I"m not asking for drawn out battleplans, I"m asking players to think before they move. If your ideal is to flank this guy yell out to flank this guy. If before combat I know i got a rogue I"m telling the party to move into flank with this guy as much as possible. I"m telling the archer to get high ground and the sorcerors to keep their pretty little heads away from my sword. You shouldn't be allowed to tell another player what to do on their turn during their turn. When you do that it forces that players to listen to you. Yeah , it might save your life, but its not up to another player to play someone else's character to save another character's life.

I think doing that makes you switch from a role playing game to a hack n slash board game.

 

[Storyteller01]

Seems this would be the perfect situation for allowing constant and immediate communication.

Quasqueton

For the first two, but the hive mind ability tends to throw me off. I'm not sure how much communication is possible, or if it's really talking as compared to intuitive knowledge.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I don't want to make the heroes of the story think and act like non-combatant civilians from planet Earth year 2005. The characters are expert fighting heroes in a fantasy medieval universe, fictional supermen who stand face to face with goblins and elves on a daily basis. The conclusion of a 2 minute meta-game conversation between Wilma, Fred, and Barney in Cincinnatti, is the equivalent of what a magically-enhanced Fighter, Cleric, and a Rogue will do in 6 seconds without opening their mouths to speak a single word.

I agree, this is why I allow it to. My players and I enjoy coming up with strategy and tactics and sometimes this sort of thing means the difference between life and death.

In order to avoid having to role play out hours and hours of training excercises with the PCs, I let them discuss certain tactics at the table. I assume that their characters are professional adventurers, their lives depend on proper tactics and teamwork. So, when someone says, "flank him, I need to do something", I have no problem with that. Also, even if it's more complicated than that, I assume the PCs have a code system for giving instructions to each other or that its been practiced enough that it would be instictive to the characters, even if it isn't to the players. The fighter sees the chance to help the rogue flank, he does so. Even if OOC, there was an actual discussion about where the fighter should move this round.

 

[DonTadow]

I agree, this is why I allow it to. My players and I enjoy coming up with strategy and tactics and sometimes this sort of thing means the difference between life and death.

In order to avoid having to role play out hours and hours of training excercises with the PCs, I let them discuss certain tactics at the table. I assume that their characters are professional adventurers, their lives depend on proper tactics and teamwork. So, when someone says, "flank him, I need to do something", I have no problem with that. Also, even if it's more complicated than that, I assume the PCs have a code system for giving instructions to each other or that its been practiced enough that it would be instictive to the characters, even if it isn't to the players. The fighter sees the chance to help the rogue flank, he does so. Even if OOC, there was an actual discussion about where the fighter should move this round.

Doesn't that venture into board game/ tactical team game territory. In Risk and Axis and Allies I could see no problem with it. But D and D has always IMO been about a person role playing a character in a team. Not a team role playing a team. I don't think it takes hours of role playing tactics for a group, before they head into the Mindflayer's layer to discuss how their going to handle the situation. There just seems to be some individualism of the players lost when you metagame.