When PCs Talk: Free, swift, move action?

[Lanefan]

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!

OK, except that doesn't jive with:

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.

This. You're turning the characters - both friend and foe - *into* automatons, where one says something and another has to wait a few seconds in order to respond and a bunch of people are expected to stop what they're doing and wait for the response. Completely unrealistic, as you'll find if you ever try this at a social gathering sometime.

This is one area where the shorter 3e rounds fail. It takes just as long to play out a 3e round as a 1e round - which means just as many words can be physically spoken by you and the players - but the in-game time thus represented is only 6 seconds rather than a minute. In a 1-minute (or even 30-second) round there *is* time for some back-and-forth discussion, either with the bad guys or between the PCs. 6 seconds really limits the options, so if someone's trying to say too much you as DM might have to shut them down.

That said, if anyone is being an asshat - whether on his own turn or not - and spewing out metagame information that his character wouldn't or couldn't know or making suggestions to a character who is elsewhere and out of communication, the smackdown hammer comes out real quick.

There is also OOC commentary, "Wow! That ogre screwed up your whole day with that crit!"

Oh, we have lots of that too...sometimes in character, sometimes not...

Lanefan

 

[el-remmen]

OK, except that doesn't jive with:
This. You're turning the characters - both friend and foe - *into* automatons, where one says something and another has to wait a few seconds in order to respond and a bunch of people are expected to stop what they're doing and wait for the response. Completely unrealistic, as you'll find if you ever try this at a social gathering sometime.

Except that the amount of time that is passing while things are being is an abstract non-linear 6 seconds. . . We just play things in those turns because of we need some way of organizing things, but we could be describing two actions as happening simultaneously as long as one does not make the other impossible or vice-versa.

I am not looking for realistic, necessarily.

 

[Kelleris]

I play it in the Mutants and Masterminds way. Steve Kenson points out that a comic-book character can say an awful lot while he delivers a punch, and I don't see why High-Fantasy characters should be any different. So I allow whole (albeit short) conversations inside of one character's turn. I find that this encourages roleplaying in combat, which is hard to do when you're limited to grunting and pointing and have to wait until three other people have gone to get a response.

The metagame issue is an entirely separate one, to my mind. I just play it by ear, really. I see no need to include the "speaking in-character" rules in my attempts to keep players from being jerkwads.

 

[Cyberia]

I'm ok if PCs talk out of turn... the turns are really for ease of management and not hard and fast realities (AFAIC)... since the timeframe is short, I don't allow players to discuss and plan complex battle tactics that they didn't think up before hand.

If someone wants to shout "Back me up" or something a little more complex than that, it feels like it's in the spirit of the 6 second rule

 

[IceFractal]

I don't allow players to discuss and plan complex battle tactics that they didn't think up before hand.

There's a balance here though - making a completely new plan to cover something the characters had no way of forseeing, mid-battle, doesn't make sense. But for many situations, the characters have a lot more battle experience and time spent training together than the players, and a level of tactical coordination is appropriate.

So if the characters have been fighting together for a while, I think "retroactive strategy" can make sense. For instance:
Wizard: "Phoenix Formation! Which means back up slightly so I can fireball the zombies."
Or: "Mirror the Naga. Meaning you have the best defenses against it, so get in its face."

Of course, that's just what one character is saying - if the other players want to disagree, or are confused about the situation (illusions, for instance), they could do something different. But it makes sense for experienced adventurers to coordinate tactics.

 

[the Jester]

Talk on your turn only, but say (almost) as much as you want.

 

[ShadowChemosh]

Free Action

....
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."

Where's the wrenching agony, the thrilling drama, and the independent thought in that?

In my games I not only allow out of turn talking(free action), but I actually encourage my players to do so. I have seen that I have to remind and specifically tell new players to my group about this rule. The big reason is when my players make a know roll about a monster they get a little Monster Index Card that has player info about the monster. The player that receives this card is only allowed to tell other players about the monster as they can not actually give the index card to others. So I always have to make it a point to inform players that they should tell the group about the monster and to speak outside their turn as a free action.

In example 2 above the rest of the conversation in my group would go as follows: George says "Thanks Bob I totally forgot about that. I will charge the naga instead as my character would remember such a thing and would want to protect the rest of the party from the poison."

I didn't have to spend time reminding players of what their own characters can do which is a big pet peeve of mine. The players get to work together as a team and the George player is rewarded for having a character that is immune to poison. Seems like a total all around win to me.

Though also in the above example if George didn't want to charge the naga that would be the end of the conversation. I would not punish all my players if just one of them was forcing his play style on to the rest. I would have a talk with the ONE player causing the issue not set a rule for everyone, but thats how I DM and again it may not work for all groups.

 

[Jeysie]

Our group is pretty free with letting people talk to each other in-and-out of turn, mainly because everyone is disciplined enough to not abuse it. I personally find it feels more fun and realistic to be able to talk freely. It means there can be lots of back-and-forth trash talking going on, and it means you hash out plans on the fly rather than getting/having to sit back and plan out your response.

We don't have a problem with people suggesting actions to each other both ICly and OOCly, either. Sometimes people forget stuff, and it encourages working together and helping each other. Plus the other player is always free to refuse and do things their own way.

IMHO, this is more realistic, too. If you were in a fight and getting your butt handed to you, wouldn't *you* point out that your ally So-and-so isn't using that Uber-Weapon you know they have? And wouldn't So-and-so either say their version of "Oh yeah, dur," or give their reason for not using it?

Peace & Luv, Liz

 

[el-remmen]

IMHO, this is more realistic, too. If you were in a fight and getting your butt handed to you, wouldn't *you* point out that your ally So-and-so isn't using that Uber-Weapon you know they have? And wouldn't So-and-so either say their version of "Oh yeah, dur," or give their reason for not using it?

But nothing about talking on your own turn keeps that from happening. If anything, because all talk is kept in character we get a lot more of that.

 

[Elf Witch]

I allow talking as a free action. There is no reason you can't yell something as you are swinging a weapon.

It has to be kept short though no long speeches or tactical discussions. Yelling get over here and help me. IE get into flanking position is allowed telling the player how to accomplish it is not allowed unless all you are doing is defending yourself that round.

As a DM I put a stop to anyone else telling another player how to play their character. I don't care if the player is not making the best tactical choice it is his character and he can do what he wants.