-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
When PCs Talk: Free, swift, move action?
- Thread starter Wisdom Penalty
- Start date
Wisdom Penalty
First Post
el-remmen said:
That's exactly how we play it, el-remmen, and your sentiments as to its benefits are identical to my own.
Tewligan
First Post
Oh, I'm not questioning whether anyone successfully plays that way - I've grudgingly accepted that not everyone enjoys the same things I do (inexplicably). I'm just saying that for me - and I would imagine a fair amount of other people - this kind of rule is something I wouldn't be willing to go along with in a group.el-remmen said:
Usually what we did is just come up with a consensus on the ground rules. The last time I ran a campaign we would decide to allow a player to speak only on their turn, but there wasn't any hard and fast rule on how much time they were given. What really got me was when someone would suggest an action for some other player's PC. That I wouldn't allow, and would have the suggesting player miss their next turn if they pulled that sort of stunt.
Thornir Alekeg
Albatross!
I have never found any fun being reduced by people speaking out of turn. Of course I played a very casual style game with lots of ooc talk and joking around. Maybe in a more serious group it would be an issue.
akbearfoot
First Post
Not being able to talk in combat pretty much destroys any sort of dialog with the bad guys...
Well if I try and talk to the BBEG and ask him to let the prisoner go, then my allies will all have to skip their attacks for the round just to wait to see if he will talk to me...assuming he's got minions, they are going to keep attacking us while we wait for a reply....that's not gonna happen.
I disagree with the notion that offering helpful tactical suggestions is negative or unfun. Being a jerk and saying things like 'dude dont be an idiot, move there instead' is one thing, but instead saying 'if you move there, you can avoid an AoO' is legit IMO. A character that has been in tons and tons of fights would definitely know how to move in combat to avoid letting his guard down etc. However many players get confounded by rules and strategies that they simply forget a rule or cant see the angle very well, or because they cant tell the minis apart and mistook an enemy for an ally. Getting killed in a fight because of something like that is definitely unfun in my book.
Also, what about when a player fails to take into account buffs, or penalties? Is it ok to point out bonuses? 'Hey don't forget the bards inspire courage' or 'Don't forget to add flanking'. Everyone and I mean EVERYONE forgets some of these things some times. It's helpful and fair to remind someone if you notice the error. In my games, I'm tend to always know whos bonuses are what and since we roll dice visibly on the table it is easy to notice when someone didnt count something. And to be fair, it works the same way with AC penalties from charging, or ability damage etc...
It's true that we don't generally socialize with bad guys, however when the GMs bad guys start talking to us, or offering information we almost always go for it....If we had to do the round robin 6 second conversation thing we would never ever ever talk. Losing actions on purpose in combat is like attempted suicide in tougher fights. Esiecially if you are in the thick of things and threatened by multiple enemies.
Well if I try and talk to the BBEG and ask him to let the prisoner go, then my allies will all have to skip their attacks for the round just to wait to see if he will talk to me...assuming he's got minions, they are going to keep attacking us while we wait for a reply....that's not gonna happen.
I disagree with the notion that offering helpful tactical suggestions is negative or unfun. Being a jerk and saying things like 'dude dont be an idiot, move there instead' is one thing, but instead saying 'if you move there, you can avoid an AoO' is legit IMO. A character that has been in tons and tons of fights would definitely know how to move in combat to avoid letting his guard down etc. However many players get confounded by rules and strategies that they simply forget a rule or cant see the angle very well, or because they cant tell the minis apart and mistook an enemy for an ally. Getting killed in a fight because of something like that is definitely unfun in my book.
Also, what about when a player fails to take into account buffs, or penalties? Is it ok to point out bonuses? 'Hey don't forget the bards inspire courage' or 'Don't forget to add flanking'. Everyone and I mean EVERYONE forgets some of these things some times. It's helpful and fair to remind someone if you notice the error. In my games, I'm tend to always know whos bonuses are what and since we roll dice visibly on the table it is easy to notice when someone didnt count something. And to be fair, it works the same way with AC penalties from charging, or ability damage etc...
It's true that we don't generally socialize with bad guys, however when the GMs bad guys start talking to us, or offering information we almost always go for it....If we had to do the round robin 6 second conversation thing we would never ever ever talk. Losing actions on purpose in combat is like attempted suicide in tougher fights. Esiecially if you are in the thick of things and threatened by multiple enemies.
prospero63
First Post
I wouldn't much enjoy that kind of game. We may, from time to time, restrict talk (i.e. no giving a dissertation during a 6 second round) but a large component of the games I play in are the social elements. If I wanted to sit quietly in a room and be talked to... I'd hang out at home with the wife. 
Wisdom Penalty
First Post
akbearfoot said:
I don't want to speak for el-remmen or anyone else, but I generally allow OOC type of quotes. In other words, we want to follow the rules, so if we forget a rule and someone remembers, they can certainly pipe up about it.
So...here's an "OK" example and a "NOT OK" example:
Example 1: Bob says (at any time): "George, don't worry about rolling your save vs. fear. Remember - we had heroe's feast and you're immune."
Example 2: Bob says (not on his turn): "George, why are you charging the orc? You are immune to poison and Bill isn't. Dude, you should charge the naga instead."
Heck, different strokes for different folks, but I can't see the fun of every decision be a group-think decision. Where's the wrenching agony, the thrilling drama, and the independent thought in that?
W.P.
MonkeyDragon
Explorer
In my group there is rarely any actual in character talking during combat, but there is a fair amount of tactical discussion. Things like go this way instead of that, then I can get flanking. Center the fireball here so it misses everyone but the bad guys. X isn't working, try Y instead.
It doesn't bother me because 1) characters have a lot of knowledge and experience that players don't have when it comes to combat. There's no harm in another player helping someone pick an action that their character would probably already know to do. (This is the same position I take on a lot of meta knowledge of monsters, etc. There's a certain amount of information that it's reasonable to assume the character has, even if the player doesn't.)
2) It's a battle where everything is happening at roughly the same time. It's reasonable to suggest that characters are able to shout things at each other. Mostly it's stuff like simple instructions that the player in question may or may not follow so that the group can coordinate on the battlefield. I'm even ok with simple questions. No long, protracted conversations, though.
When fights are particularly long or dangerous, it's inevitable that players will start talking amongst themselves to try and figure out who's hurt more, who has a plan, who can do what. This may interrupt realism, but the group may enjoy working out the battle like a tactical puzzle, and I'm fine with that.
As you can tell, we do very little roleplaying while IN combat. Most of our in-character interactions happen outside of initiative.
It doesn't bother me because 1) characters have a lot of knowledge and experience that players don't have when it comes to combat. There's no harm in another player helping someone pick an action that their character would probably already know to do. (This is the same position I take on a lot of meta knowledge of monsters, etc. There's a certain amount of information that it's reasonable to assume the character has, even if the player doesn't.)
2) It's a battle where everything is happening at roughly the same time. It's reasonable to suggest that characters are able to shout things at each other. Mostly it's stuff like simple instructions that the player in question may or may not follow so that the group can coordinate on the battlefield. I'm even ok with simple questions. No long, protracted conversations, though.
When fights are particularly long or dangerous, it's inevitable that players will start talking amongst themselves to try and figure out who's hurt more, who has a plan, who can do what. This may interrupt realism, but the group may enjoy working out the battle like a tactical puzzle, and I'm fine with that.
As you can tell, we do very little roleplaying while IN combat. Most of our in-character interactions happen outside of initiative.
el-remmen
Moderator Emeritus
Wisdom Penalty said:
Yep, exactly. I have said it before (probably in that other thread I linked above), but I will say it again. We are humans not automatons!
Rules are meant to be occasionally bent and infrequently broken - and anyway, reminding someone of something that is active or of a particular rule they forgot that would change how the action played out (not change the action itself, mind you - I think Wis Pen's examples above are good ones) is totally okay. As for the person that said, "then everyone has to wait until the villain responds" is exactly the kind of thing I am looking to happen - tough choices. As for the minions attacking, well that depends on the situation and why the fight is even happening and what is trying to be accomplished by one side or the other.
And it is not as if all OOC talk is disallowed, just stuff that affects what is immediately going on in terms of decision-making. It is totally acceptable, for example, for between your turns to ask someone's help explaining how a spell or ability works, or something similar.
Also, we're not "sitting quietly". Most of the time there is a lot of cheering and groaning going on, people are deciding their next action because I will move on if people take too long when it comes up (though I have not had to do that in years - the typical response from one of my players who hesitates when their turn comes is just to say "I delay"), etc. . . There is also OOC commentary, "Wow! That ogre screwed up your whole day with that crit!"
