Warlord Player's job is to tell other players what to do??

[KarinsDad]

In combat, this doesn't bother our group, and we allow out of character strategizing all the time. Why? Because in real life, the players are weekend warriors who only devote maybe five to ten hours a week max concentrating on D&D. In "game reality", the characters are seasoned veterans who live and die by their tactics, so they've talked, planned, and plotted in their off time on the best tactics working together in a situation, and various codes and signal phrases on how to communicate that info quickly. Same as how I wouldn't make a player roleplay out every nuance of his bluff check to seduce a barmaid, I assume that the time spent in downtime around the campfire, etc. would be spent dicussing the day's events, tactics, etc.and that is representted by the table talk during battle.

When I use my White raven tactics to give another player an extra turn in combat, I relate it as "spurring them on with my words, urging them to strike at the right spot, while the advantage is pressed, etc." what he does with that turn is up to him.

Except that it really isn't just up to him.

If the group discusses tactics out of character, it prevents the player from coming up with solutions on his own. It also pressures that player into using the "group consensus". If he deviates, it is almost sure to have other players question him.

Some people like to make decisions for their own PC and would be uncomfortable in a "group discussion" mode.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm not saying rules should exist for everything what I am saying is when a rule becomes so specific that it becomes impossible to use said rule in a creative manner that then becomes outside the specific parameters of said rule.

Thus my example, horribly-exagerrated but the person wanted to do something that he should be able to do, but overly-specific rules hinder that from happening.

I think you need a better, more plausible example because it appears that your point is pretty much non-sequitor to most known 3E or 4E rules. Most rules state the game mechanics it affects. Most rules are not too specific, just specific within their area of expertise.

If you had some real 3E or 4E rules that are too specific, it would support your claim here.


An example of rules that might go too far are the old Judges Guild charts. A chart for everything. But, even 2E started getting away from that and there are very few chart lookups in 3E (Turning Undead being one exception I can think of).

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Except that it really isn't just up to him.

If the group discusses tactics out of character, it prevents the player from coming up with solutions on his own. It also pressures that player into using the "group consensus". If he deviates, it is almost sure to have other players question him.

Some people like to make decisions for their own PC and would be uncomfortable in a "group discussion" mode.

I hate to sound rude, but then he shouldn't play a Warlord. Given that the Warlord is based around team-play and group-dynamics.

 

[KarinsDad]

Except everyone gets to move other allies, once that daily is activated. Not just the Warlord.

Only if the Warlord hits. If he misses, then he gets to move one ally and that one ally gets to move other allies.

 

[Kobu]

It is not just the Warlord being tactfully minded, he simply gives more tactical opportunities to the rest of the party (including himself).

That would describe the marshal, but it does not hold with what we have been shown of the warlord so far. My impression is that the player with the warlord is meant to metagame. The article supports this: "...if you're the type of player who loves studying tactical situations and trying to puzzle out the best way to get everyone through alive..."

Why should we have a class that encourages this?

 

[Kobu]

Except everyone gets to move other allies, once that daily is activated. Not just the Warlord.

Is that supposed to make it better? I don't want the fighter moving my character anymore than I want the warlord to.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Since people like using tactics and like supporting the rest of the party and the idea of using tactics as a team is a pretty universal idea.

The Warlord has to be tactical, but not all his powers are overly-controlling as people have suggested (or I guess to be fair to those people, as how I view it).

Also these are three powers here, we haven't even seen any Utility powers, which I imagine will add a ton of nice-tactical gameplay into the mix as well.

 

[Kobu]

I'm not saying rules should exist for everything what I am saying is when a rule becomes so specific that it becomes impossible to use said rule in a creative manner that then becomes outside the specific parameters of said rule.

Thus my example, horribly-exagerrated but the person wanted to do something that he should be able to do, but overly-specific rules hinder that from happening.

Give an actual example then of a clear and precise rule hindering someone from doing something reasonable. The throwing dagger thing made no sense in the context of D&D.

 

[KarinsDad]

I hate to sound rude, but then he shouldn't play a Warlord. Given that the Warlord is based around team-play and group-dynamics.

I wasn't talking about just a player attempting to play a Warlord. I was talking about cross table tactical discussions which result in a player being pressured to go with the group.

I have two players in my group that are not so good at tactics. I discourage cross table combat tactics talk for two reasons:

1) I want those players to learn in order to get better at it (one of them is my wife) and that doesn't happen as well if other people often make decisions for them. They learn better by learning from their own mistakes and watching what tactics the other players use.

2) I do not want to embarrass those players by having other people chime in "smarter tactics". Fred says "I move up and attack" and Barney says "No, no. You want to move around him like this to both avoid the Attack of Opportunity and gain the Flank.".


People who need to play with cross table combat tactics discussions seem to be more "win/goal" oriented than "let each player do what he wants to have fun, even if he makes a mistake" oriented. At least IME.

 

[bramadan]

I am still failing to see the problem.

If someone tries to move me against my will (or force me into anything else against my will) they are by definition no longer my ally. So if warlord tries to move someone against their will they will fail by the rules.

If you don't want players discussing strategy during combat that is fine. Guy playing Warlord will have to be more careful then otherwise with using his spells but then again so will Wizard (with his spell positioning) and Cleric (with heals) and even Rogue with movement and flanking.
You are clearly able to deal with those, I don't see why you should have issue with Warlord

Amount of table-talk is a function of a table. Some people enjoy it, some don't and DM has the last word on the topic. There is nothing about 4ed that either encourages or discourages table talk unless you think that the very fact that the game is more interesting tactically will make people table-talk more but that I would say is putting the cart well in front of the horse.