In Game or Out Game? [Archive] - Wizards Community

In Game or Out Game? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Hardrik
06-04-04, 10:06 PM In Game or Out Game? Here is my Question:

Im going to start to play with a new group of player, and a few of them dont agree in my Idea.

I think that when something is happening in the game like for example we face a problem; we found ourself in a wizzards library and we are trying to talk him out to let us go out of it alive, because we know we are in desadvantage, we know he controls 2 golems and our party is only 4 characters, we know we cant fight him. So here is my thing, if we discust how we are going to talk him out to let us live, i think we talk this "In Game" Character to Character has a party; Well this Group of player thinks that can be discusst this "Out of The Game" pretty much stoping the game time and discussting it out of it, i think that "Out Game" should be only for disccusting rules or checks, or thing that you dont understand besides that, is character to character, so things stay more "In Game" What you guys thinks?
Jell_Moo
06-04-04, 10:32 PM It all depends on how you view D&D.

Some people like everything to be done in character. That's fine if that is what you like. In this case, you view D&D as a Role-Playing Game.

Others don't see the need to constantly be in character. This is also okay. In this case, the person views D&D as a Role-Playing Game.

Neither view is right, neither view is wrong. i personally tend to play the second way. When planning or strategizing I do it OoC.

Play it however you like. But, since the rest of your group doesn't seem to feel the same way you do, don't expect them to play the way you want them to play.
MoogleEmpMog
06-04-04, 10:32 PM I wouldn't worry about a little OoC discussion - especially if any of the PCs have very high Int or Wis scores.

Why?

99 times out of 100, gamers, though quite possibly above the real-world average in those scores, are not nearly as intelligent or canny as highly trained adventuring professionals of the Wizard and Cleric classes, whose stats push the upper limits of human capability. A few minutes Out of Character discussion can go a long way toward simulating what such characters would be able to think up in seconds.
Thorak
06-04-04, 11:01 PM There's also the fact that this is a game. You're not trying to become your character and only ever act like them. You're trying to play a game, and your character is your representative. Saying you can't discuss things OOC is like saying you can't discuss possible trades in Monopoly when it's not your turn. You can only finalize the trade on your turn, but there's no reason why you can't discuss it.

The moment my DM makes me ask, in character, for a Pepsi because I the player am thirsty is the day I call my DM a weirdo and walk out.
Edymnion
06-04-04, 11:46 PM Originally posted by Thorak
The moment my DM makes me ask, in character, for a Pepsi because I the player am thirsty is the day I call my DM a weirdo and walk out. Okay, now you're just going too far.
This isn't a discussion about making EVERYTHING said at the table in game, or having to do everything in game.

I would allow the out of game discussion, but then they MUST play it out IN GAME, all over again, so that the CHARACTERS know what is going on. Working out tactics and suddenly having the characters reacting on the fly to things they know nothing about isn't the way to go.

Out of Game discussion on tactics is fine, as long as something happens In Game to account for it.

I'm sure somebody will bring up the whole "Well, they're a team, and they'd know how this sort of thing works, and would just naturally react together" bit. But really, if you've been playing since lvl 1, you know how everybody else is going to react just as well as your characters do. Taking a time out to work things out and then having everybody do exactly the right thing without so much as a word isn't appropriate, however.
Bulabase
06-05-04, 12:09 AM I find role-playing to be a lot of fun. Often, my characters would take a different course of action than I would. The easiest way to make the distinction is to have all planning take place IC. Doing this also helps to cut down on metagaming a bit in my experience. If you are not used to it, it feels a bit odd at first, but it is well worth the effort, IMHO.
CJ1720
06-05-04, 04:25 AM Well, if you're being menaced by a wizard in his library, there isn't a lot of time to call a time out and huddle. As DM, I wouldn't tolerate a lot of talk around the table. I would expect the characters to react to the situation and the players to simulate the time constraints and pressures of the situation.

There should be time for OOC talk about strategies and scenarios, but from what the original poster described, it doesn't sound to me like this is it.

On the other hand, it is terribly difficult to play a character with a 16 or 18 intelligence or wisdom. Such a character would be much smarter or wiser than the average player. Discussion, as one poster pointed out, can help simulate these types of intelligence.

In th end it is up to your DM and other players as to how they want to handle the situation.

The rule of thumb is -- have fun!
Thorak
06-05-04, 09:59 AM Originally posted by Edymnion
Okay, now you're just going too far.
This isn't a discussion about making EVERYTHING said at the table in game, or having to do everything in game.

I would allow the out of game discussion, but then they MUST play it out IN GAME, all over again, so that the CHARACTERS know what is going on. Working out tactics and suddenly having the characters reacting on the fly to things they know nothing about isn't the way to go.

Out of Game discussion on tactics is fine, as long as something happens In Game to account for it.

I'm sure somebody will bring up the whole "Well, they're a team, and they'd know how this sort of thing works, and would just naturally react together" bit. But really, if you've been playing since lvl 1, you know how everybody else is going to react just as well as your characters do. Taking a time out to work things out and then having everybody do exactly the right thing without so much as a word isn't appropriate, however.

Well, yes. In the game I play, my group has tactical OOG discussions all the time. But when we return to the action, our characters start yelling crap at each other, and people whose characters are around the corner and out of hearing patiently wait and ask the DM if their character can hear the battle and/or shouts yet. They don't 'accidentally' start wandering down the tunnel just for kicks or something, though.

And, of course, some people's characters are obtuse, and ignore the agreed-upon tactics. But that's good RP.
Hardrik
06-05-04, 11:55 PM Well... as i see, a lot of people have replyed, my conclution is that meaby a mix of both (In game and out game) could be the best way of playing this game, the thing is knowing when you have time to stop the game and make a time to discust things and when you dont, and you charaters will have to take actions at the moment or discusting character to character.

Well this is my conclutions, if anyone have something to say about it, ill be thankfull, in the mean time i will do as the DM says, if he want to do everything Character to Character or allowing players to disccus in the middle of anything, or just mixing them.
Frodo Lives
06-06-04, 03:50 PM Out of game discussions are fine, in some situations. In this situation there is no time for characters to sit down over a friendly ale and have a long winded discussion about what to do. They are in kind of a pressure situation where there is no time for a group hug to discuss the best course of action.

I don't think roleplaying the "what should we do" style discussions is really necessary, however, I don't think that it is also reasonable that the party acts as if it has a hive mind like the borg where everyone knows what everyone else thinks in every situation.

It's a fine line, and I go with the flow. If it feels like it shouldn't be allowed it isn't, if it does, it is.
Stuntman
06-07-04, 03:09 AM I would prefer to do things in game as much as possible. I would keep out game discussions to something more general and not specifically relating to the situation at hand. You can discuss when is a good time to use an Enlarge spells, but if you need to enlarge something, I would prefer players say, "Quick enlarge X!"

In Hardrik's example, I would say handle things in game. You are missing a major opportunity for role-playing if you do an out of game discussion. Using an out of game discussion just turns it into a strategic war game. If the players and DM like it this way, then go ahead. It's fun to see how each player tries to negotiate with the wizard. I take it that unless the party does anything hostile, the wizard is at least willing to converse with any PC. Handling this encounter in game, leads to more spontaneous actions that can be quite fun.

Bottom line is that it is up to the players and DM to decide what type of game this is going to be. I highly recommend that you play this and as many situations in game as possible. I really think the game will be more interesting.
was_fired
06-07-04, 06:05 AM I try to force all tactical and certainly all game related (not rules though) discussions in game. Whenever I player addressed another infront of an NPC without wanting them to hear I would always ask something like, "So, you have telepathy now?" It got to them so much one of them picked up a rakshasa cohort with a helm of telepathy. Now they enjoy long drawn out tactical discussions in battle. I was nice and allowed the helm to work with the rakshasa's natural detect thoughts ability for a longer range version of the magic items normal power.
Dagart Anderheim
06-13-04, 02:17 AM The discussing should be in game since your PCs will be talking to each other. Furthermore a PC with high int, and wis should think of better plans while a PC with low int, and wis shouldn't be allowed to make good plans even if the player thinks of something good. Besides different PCs think differently: a wizard will think of his spells, a bard or paladin might use diplomacy, while a rogue will use subterfuge (maybe try to sneak out).
ck2001wendt
06-13-04, 03:10 AM -------------------------------------------
There's also the fact that this is a game. You're not trying to become your character and only ever act like them. You're trying to play a game, and your character is your representative. Saying you can't discuss things OOC is like saying you can't discuss possible trades in Monopoly when it's not your turn. You can only finalize the trade on your turn, but there's no reason why you can't discuss it.
---------------------------------------------

In the "stricter" campaigns I´ve played in, we´ve had a no OOC rule, a 30 second decision rule on our turn, and a 6 word\round IC limit.

I´m much more liberal as a DM on the first two points, but if I were doing my job, I would say no OOC discussions about strategy or tactics when in an encounter with NPCs or foes in the same area.

If you want to have a "strategy session" OOC before the party rests for the night or while they´re searching an empty room, that´s fine, though it´s even more interesting when you do it in character.

But if you´re sitting there, and you call a "time out" in the middle of an active encounter to talk about the best way to beat a Golem, you´re Metagaming. It´s not as bad as if one of you pulls out the MM and goes to the "Golem" entry, but it´s Metagaming nonetheless.

Are they in the room with the Wizard? Is he sitting there, watching them huddle up? Then he should get a Listen check to determine what they´re saying (OOC) and the DM should take this into consideration.
Frodo Lives
06-13-04, 12:39 PM There is no pause button on the game for your characters to take a step out of time to discuss stratagy or tactics, so it really shouldn't be allowed in the middle of an encounter.

Outside of an encounter I don't think it's a huge deal.

It is important to remember the character you are playing. For example in a recent game we ran into a puzzle which involved identifing the spell effects based on the different schools of spells. Well, the one player who normally plays a wizard was playing a fighter with no ranks in spellcraft or Knowledge (Arcana) and decided to keep his mouth shut for the puzzle even though, as a player, he knew more about magic than the rest of us, but as his character, he didn't know diddly. However the one player who was playing a cleric with the magic domain and worshipped the goddess of magic, didn't know squat as a player, but as a character he was allowed rolls to determine what he did or didn't know. This was a great case where Meta gaming would have been real easy to do, but good role playing didn't allow it to happen.

The point to this whole story is that by doing OOG discussions in situations that wouldn't really allow it is a form of Meta gaming, which IMO good players should try to aviod.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Hardrik 06-04-04, 10:06 PM	In Game or Out Game? Here is my Question: Im going to start to play with a new group of player, and a few of them dont agree in my Idea. I think that when something is happening in the game like for example we face a problem; we found ourself in a wizzards library and we are trying to talk him out to let us go out of it alive, because we know we are in desadvantage, we know he controls 2 golems and our party is only 4 characters, we know we cant fight him. So here is my thing, if we discust how we are going to talk him out to let us live, i think we talk this "In Game" Character to Character has a party; Well this Group of player thinks that can be discusst this "Out of The Game" pretty much stoping the game time and discussting it out of it, i think that "Out Game" should be only for disccusting rules or checks, or thing that you dont understand besides that, is character to character, so things stay more "In Game" What you guys thinks?
Jell_Moo 06-04-04, 10:32 PM	It all depends on how you view D&D. Some people like everything to be done in character. That's fine if that is what you like. In this case, you view D&D as a Role-Playing Game. Others don't see the need to constantly be in character. This is also okay. In this case, the person views D&D as a Role-Playing Game. Neither view is right, neither view is wrong. i personally tend to play the second way. When planning or strategizing I do it OoC. Play it however you like. But, since the rest of your group doesn't seem to feel the same way you do, don't expect them to play the way you want them to play.
MoogleEmpMog 06-04-04, 10:32 PM	I wouldn't worry about a little OoC discussion - especially if any of the PCs have very high Int or Wis scores. Why? 99 times out of 100, gamers, though quite possibly above the real-world average in those scores, are not nearly as intelligent or canny as highly trained adventuring professionals of the Wizard and Cleric classes, whose stats push the upper limits of human capability. A few minutes Out of Character discussion can go a long way toward simulating what such characters would be able to think up in seconds.
Thorak 06-04-04, 11:01 PM	There's also the fact that this is a game. You're not trying to become your character and only ever act like them. You're trying to play a game, and your character is your representative. Saying you can't discuss things OOC is like saying you can't discuss possible trades in Monopoly when it's not your turn. You can only finalize the trade on your turn, but there's no reason why you can't discuss it. The moment my DM makes me ask, in character, for a Pepsi because I the player am thirsty is the day I call my DM a weirdo and walk out.
Edymnion 06-04-04, 11:46 PM	Originally posted by Thorak The moment my DM makes me ask, in character, for a Pepsi because I the player am thirsty is the day I call my DM a weirdo and walk out. Okay, now you're just going too far. This isn't a discussion about making EVERYTHING said at the table in game, or having to do everything in game. I would allow the out of game discussion, but then they MUST play it out IN GAME, all over again, so that the CHARACTERS know what is going on. Working out tactics and suddenly having the characters reacting on the fly to things they know nothing about isn't the way to go. Out of Game discussion on tactics is fine, as long as something happens In Game to account for it. I'm sure somebody will bring up the whole "Well, they're a team, and they'd know how this sort of thing works, and would just naturally react together" bit. But really, if you've been playing since lvl 1, you know how everybody else is going to react just as well as your characters do. Taking a time out to work things out and then having everybody do exactly the right thing without so much as a word isn't appropriate, however.
Bulabase 06-05-04, 12:09 AM	I find role-playing to be a lot of fun. Often, my characters would take a different course of action than I would. The easiest way to make the distinction is to have all planning take place IC. Doing this also helps to cut down on metagaming a bit in my experience. If you are not used to it, it feels a bit odd at first, but it is well worth the effort, IMHO.
CJ1720 06-05-04, 04:25 AM	Well, if you're being menaced by a wizard in his library, there isn't a lot of time to call a time out and huddle. As DM, I wouldn't tolerate a lot of talk around the table. I would expect the characters to react to the situation and the players to simulate the time constraints and pressures of the situation. There should be time for OOC talk about strategies and scenarios, but from what the original poster described, it doesn't sound to me like this is it. On the other hand, it is terribly difficult to play a character with a 16 or 18 intelligence or wisdom. Such a character would be much smarter or wiser than the average player. Discussion, as one poster pointed out, can help simulate these types of intelligence. In th end it is up to your DM and other players as to how they want to handle the situation. The rule of thumb is -- have fun!
Thorak 06-05-04, 09:59 AM	Originally posted by Edymnion Okay, now you're just going too far. This isn't a discussion about making EVERYTHING said at the table in game, or having to do everything in game. I would allow the out of game discussion, but then they MUST play it out IN GAME, all over again, so that the CHARACTERS know what is going on. Working out tactics and suddenly having the characters reacting on the fly to things they know nothing about isn't the way to go. Out of Game discussion on tactics is fine, as long as something happens In Game to account for it. I'm sure somebody will bring up the whole "Well, they're a team, and they'd know how this sort of thing works, and would just naturally react together" bit. But really, if you've been playing since lvl 1, you know how everybody else is going to react just as well as your characters do. Taking a time out to work things out and then having everybody do exactly the right thing without so much as a word isn't appropriate, however. Well, yes. In the game I play, my group has tactical OOG discussions all the time. But when we return to the action, our characters start yelling crap at each other, and people whose characters are around the corner and out of hearing patiently wait and ask the DM if their character can hear the battle and/or shouts yet. They don't 'accidentally' start wandering down the tunnel just for kicks or something, though. And, of course, some people's characters are obtuse, and ignore the agreed-upon tactics. But that's good RP.
Hardrik 06-05-04, 11:55 PM	Well... as i see, a lot of people have replyed, my conclution is that meaby a mix of both (In game and out game) could be the best way of playing this game, the thing is knowing when you have time to stop the game and make a time to discust things and when you dont, and you charaters will have to take actions at the moment or discusting character to character. Well this is my conclutions, if anyone have something to say about it, ill be thankfull, in the mean time i will do as the DM says, if he want to do everything Character to Character or allowing players to disccus in the middle of anything, or just mixing them.
Frodo Lives 06-06-04, 03:50 PM	Out of game discussions are fine, in some situations. In this situation there is no time for characters to sit down over a friendly ale and have a long winded discussion about what to do. They are in kind of a pressure situation where there is no time for a group hug to discuss the best course of action. I don't think roleplaying the "what should we do" style discussions is really necessary, however, I don't think that it is also reasonable that the party acts as if it has a hive mind like the borg where everyone knows what everyone else thinks in every situation. It's a fine line, and I go with the flow. If it feels like it shouldn't be allowed it isn't, if it does, it is.
Stuntman 06-07-04, 03:09 AM	I would prefer to do things in game as much as possible. I would keep out game discussions to something more general and not specifically relating to the situation at hand. You can discuss when is a good time to use an Enlarge spells, but if you need to enlarge something, I would prefer players say, "Quick enlarge X!" In Hardrik's example, I would say handle things in game. You are missing a major opportunity for role-playing if you do an out of game discussion. Using an out of game discussion just turns it into a strategic war game. If the players and DM like it this way, then go ahead. It's fun to see how each player tries to negotiate with the wizard. I take it that unless the party does anything hostile, the wizard is at least willing to converse with any PC. Handling this encounter in game, leads to more spontaneous actions that can be quite fun. Bottom line is that it is up to the players and DM to decide what type of game this is going to be. I highly recommend that you play this and as many situations in game as possible. I really think the game will be more interesting.
was_fired 06-07-04, 06:05 AM	I try to force all tactical and certainly all game related (not rules though) discussions in game. Whenever I player addressed another infront of an NPC without wanting them to hear I would always ask something like, "So, you have telepathy now?" It got to them so much one of them picked up a rakshasa cohort with a helm of telepathy. Now they enjoy long drawn out tactical discussions in battle. I was nice and allowed the helm to work with the rakshasa's natural detect thoughts ability for a longer range version of the magic items normal power.
Dagart Anderheim 06-13-04, 02:17 AM	The discussing should be in game since your PCs will be talking to each other. Furthermore a PC with high int, and wis should think of better plans while a PC with low int, and wis shouldn't be allowed to make good plans even if the player thinks of something good. Besides different PCs think differently: a wizard will think of his spells, a bard or paladin might use diplomacy, while a rogue will use subterfuge (maybe try to sneak out).
ck2001wendt 06-13-04, 03:10 AM	------------------------------------------- There's also the fact that this is a game. You're not trying to become your character and only ever act like them. You're trying to play a game, and your character is your representative. Saying you can't discuss things OOC is like saying you can't discuss possible trades in Monopoly when it's not your turn. You can only finalize the trade on your turn, but there's no reason why you can't discuss it. --------------------------------------------- In the "stricter" campaigns I´ve played in, we´ve had a no OOC rule, a 30 second decision rule on our turn, and a 6 word\round IC limit. I´m much more liberal as a DM on the first two points, but if I were doing my job, I would say no OOC discussions about strategy or tactics when in an encounter with NPCs or foes in the same area. If you want to have a "strategy session" OOC before the party rests for the night or while they´re searching an empty room, that´s fine, though it´s even more interesting when you do it in character. But if you´re sitting there, and you call a "time out" in the middle of an active encounter to talk about the best way to beat a Golem, you´re Metagaming. It´s not as bad as if one of you pulls out the MM and goes to the "Golem" entry, but it´s Metagaming nonetheless. Are they in the room with the Wizard? Is he sitting there, watching them huddle up? Then he should get a Listen check to determine what they´re saying (OOC) and the DM should take this into consideration.
Frodo Lives 06-13-04, 12:39 PM	There is no pause button on the game for your characters to take a step out of time to discuss stratagy or tactics, so it really shouldn't be allowed in the middle of an encounter. Outside of an encounter I don't think it's a huge deal. It is important to remember the character you are playing. For example in a recent game we ran into a puzzle which involved identifing the spell effects based on the different schools of spells. Well, the one player who normally plays a wizard was playing a fighter with no ranks in spellcraft or Knowledge (Arcana) and decided to keep his mouth shut for the puzzle even though, as a player, he knew more about magic than the rest of us, but as his character, he didn't know diddly. However the one player who was playing a cleric with the magic domain and worshipped the goddess of magic, didn't know squat as a player, but as a character he was allowed rolls to determine what he did or didn't know. This was a great case where Meta gaming would have been real easy to do, but good role playing didn't allow it to happen. The point to this whole story is that by doing OOG discussions in situations that wouldn't really allow it is a form of Meta gaming, which IMO good players should try to aviod.