Six friends and I (one friend being the DM) started a 1st level 4e game a month ago and have gotten well underway into our journey. At first combat went fine, but some of my fellow PCs felt that we were strategizing too much in combat, with things like "well if you go there, then I'll go there and do this" or "point your spell there so I can reposition." So from that point onward, we were basically not allowed to talk tactics during combat anymore. I feel that our ability to talk in combat is so restricted at this point that it might not exist at all. An example:
We're in a room with melee and ranged enemies. The ranged enemies are in the back of the room while our melee opponents were directly engaging the party. Our spellcasting PC has an AoE daze effect he could use, and was told that the most he could communicate on his turn was:
"Ranged or melee?"
...and the party was allowed to respond with either "ranged" or "melee." Nothing else. No one was allowed to provide further input and the caster was not allowed to ask a question more complex than the one posed above. This sort of restriction extends to all of us, so as another example so our defender and strikers likewise can't ask allies for input on which enemy is most problematic.
I'm not sure if I'm being unreasonable but I just don't find this sort of combat fun, since I play DnD to have fun with my friends and I'm basically not allowed to interact with them in a productive way during combat under the current paradigm. What can I do?
I'm not sure if I'm being unreasonable but I just don't find this sort of combat fun, since I play DnD to have fun with my friends and I'm basically not allowed to interact with them in a productive way during combat under the current paradigm. What can I do?
Tell them that you're going to talk when you please and about what you please because that's how you have fun, but on the other hand you will also promise to spend less time strategizing because you realize it's slowing down the game for everyone else and they don't find that fun.
That's as reasonable as it gets. Problem solved.
I would ask the DM if he wants me to make an "impulse choice" without input from other players, or if he wants my character to minimize communication to simulate the drama?
If the motive is to make me select an impulsive choice, then I would go along. If he doesn't want "strategy sessions mid battle" then, I agree. However, at the begining of my turn, I am going to ask the other players what they would like me to do and will cooperate with them.
Maybe the DM just feels that there is too much talking and wants to get straight to the action without slowing the pace down to discuss everything?
I handle initiative by having Monster and Player roll against each other, and add all dice. Highest "group" goes first. When a "group" gets their turn, all members make their decisions. When it comes time for players, they all choose the order they want to act in, and make their moves together. Then, it is my turn to have "the world respond". This encourages discourse from the players and allows me to take their ideas and incorporate them.
Maybe the DM has a good reason, but get that reason first and foremost.
There is a happy medium somewhere.
In both of my groups we keep it short and direct
"i drop my blazing starfall here"
"Don't you'll hit me!"
"Oh crap, good point, i'll do this other thing instead"
Situation, 2 mobs left, neither has taken damage. One striker is 'soloing' a standard. 3 party members are on already on the other one. It's the defender's turn.
"I'm not sure what to do, it's already 3 vs 1 over here, but i can't make it to help (striker) in one turn".
"Join the rest of the party and lock that guy down, He'll die quickly if it's 4 vs 1. Meanwhile i can take a few hits, so I'll try nova this one and hopefully he won't be around long enough to kill me".
Stuff like that. The communication is more than a single word, but it isn't tactically exhaustive either.
Still, don't take too long with it. 30 seconds to 1 minute is the most you generally need for your turn. Analysis Paralysis is never good for a game.
Okay, that sounded harsh, cause I really do love D&D. I just wanted to say "polishing a turd."
Maybe I could have just said "That's just a waste of time." If I were playing with your group I would do what I could to steer them away from futile attempts at simulationism and just enjoy the game itself or the story and characters we're creating together.
I would notify the DM that the whole "not talking in battle thing" is fun in "doses" but not "all the time". Communication is key, and maybe the DM doesn't think anyone is bothered by it. I like it when "pressure challenges" are used, just not always.
At first combat went fine, but some of my fellow PCs felt that we were strategizing too much in combat, with things like "well if you go there, then I'll go there and do this" or "point your spell there so I can reposition." So from that point onward, we were basically not allowed to talk tactics during combat anymore. I feel that our ability to talk in combat is so restricted at this point that it might not exist at all.
I don't play 4E but I have to agree with you. What is the point of the game if players can't talk basic strategies and tactics during play? I mean, check me if I'm wrong but isn't this what the game is DESIGNED to allow? Players discussing between each other how "my ability X will work well in this situation with your ability Y, but maybe his ability z would work better - what do you think?" It's one thing to declare that characters can't have a 3 minute discussion about the advantages of doing this vs. that, but to tell the players they have to make "blind" choices is dumb. So dumb that I'd almost certainly take my dice and go home.
What can I do?
Communication. Make sure they know how you feel about this restriction. Determine if they are really intractible on this or if they just haven't thought about it in the right way. Then make your choice between playing a game you're not enjoying with your friends, or doing something else.
Alot of writen fiction talks about teams working as a perfect machine, knowing each other as well as they know them selves.
There are also alot of stories where heroes who just met instictively cover each others weaknesses and improve each others strenghts.
I recommend a compromise, along the lines of the players being allowed to talk, but that the first idea anyone comes up with is backed and made to work. The DM can support this by not trying to play gotcha when the players make snap decisions.
So when you communicate combat awarness in a non-realistic fashion your character is using subtle body and verbal cues, code words and educated guesswork from hours of training with the group. So as long as it doesn't get out of hand and the group isn't using OOG knowledge then it shouldn't be a problem.
This is because diplomats spend all their time preparing "scripts" of common quotes and responses. This way, if someone calls them on dirt, or asks them a stance on an issue or accuses them of working with the thieves guild, or working with outlaw slavers, they will "know how to spin it". When one diplomat is refuted, another comes up.
Yet, just like in battle, the players provide the "nails" and work off what each other says, until the battle is won. They might not be saying, in character to each other "Derp, what should I say to the king?" "Can you pass the chips?" "Yeah, here. I think, um... Diplomacy check?"
I assume the roll of the dice to "clean up" any bad wordings, and if they were in a movie scene, the actors would be making elegant lines and stunning the crowd with good word fluidity as spoken by professional speakers. Then, when they draw their swords, they would fight like highly specialized masters of their class. "Your grace?" "Yes, Bandar of Romiuk?" "Liege, your brother has... I'm afraid, been involved in some terrible things. Please, hear me." "My brother? Yoru? I feared he was involved in something dirty. A man knows his own brother, and I know when he is up to no good. Is it the falghans?" "No, grace. He has been running slaves into Dilmoor". "Scoundrel, he is! Have you evidence or just words?", "Your grace, I have this letter he wrote to your queens squire asking her to fund the operation from your treasury. Your grace, please don't say you approve?" The king is shocked and the queen admits she was trying to increase the treasury. The king is a good domestic ruler, but he doesn't believe the queen that the empire north is planning to invade at the end of winter. She wants to have the money to bribe the Empires enemies into a mutual protection pact and arm the troops.
Yet, my players aren't expert speakers, warriors or even writers. They are normal people. And, their characters are awesome.
Our group just plays with the "verbal combat cues" because we have a couple of game players that almost can't help themselves when it comes to "helping" people make the tactically most advantageous move, and with varying levels of skill at the table, it can sometimes be 1 tactically optimized player playing THEIR character plus 1 or 2 others.We all agreed to keep tactical table talk to a minimum so that people could do their own thing, and adopted the "If you say it in combat, the monster hears it, too" to help those players "remember".
YMMV, of course.
Ah, that's my fault. I should have mentioned the reason in my OP. It's to simulate realism in combat, during which fighters realistically couldn't plan their tactics out mid swing. We're rolling with the idea that in-combat rounds are a total of 6 seconds each, during which every enemy and every player moves simultaneously in theory. Of course in practice we use Initiative because simultaneous action would probably be a bit more cumbersome. But the "6 second rule" is what guides the restriction on talking strategy mid-combat.
And that's really dumb. Tell your DM so. D&D doesn't even make a half-assed attempt at being an accurate simulation of combat nor should it. The less simulation, the better. You're resolving outcomes, not modeling time and physics.
There may be a couple of other things in play here:
- You guys are taking too long to make decisions and so those who are frustrated by this are using the simulation to make the case that you should hurry the heck up. That's not a honest or direct way for them to object, but there it is. Meet them halfway.
- Some players object to the discussion of metagame information, laboring under the delusion that players = characters. Tell them this is ridiculous and hurts the game's pacing more than it helps their immersion. They also need to work on their immersion skills. (Yes, it's a skill.)
For that situation, I have a shot clock and if nobody runs out the shot clock on their turn in a particular round, good things happen.
Everyone has 1 minute to take their turn. If they don't decide in that time then their character waits until next round. That'll keep them from talking through combat too much.
So, you agree that the issue is an out-of-game one of time wasted at the table, not the in-game one of characters strategizing more that they realistically could?
There also is a fear among players to be less than optimal in every decision, especially in a tactical game like 4E. The DM needs to be willing to work with mistakes rather than just punishing them. If I screw something up as a player and it ends up being fun, then I don't worry about it as much. If I screw up and everyone at the table acts like I've just doomed them in real life and the DM acts like a shark smelling blood in the water, well that's a different game.
Everyone has 1 minute to take their turn. If they don't decide in that time then their character waits until next round. That'll keep them from talking through combat too much.
But there are several actions to make, so more than one decision, and oftentimes you have to wait until one action is resolved before taking another, and just resolving one action can take more than one minute sometimes.
When I do a shot clock, I only time the first action. After that I don't time it and the rest of a player's turn usually goes much quicker after the initial option paralysis is pushed through. Also, I've found in the past that when I've instituted a shot-clock and am upfront and honest about why I'm doing it, it isn't needed for more than one or two sessions ... the players quickly get used to just doing something fun, even if it isn't optimal, and the option-paralysis disappears when they see that it isn't the end of the world if they don't make the best move each time.
Also, missing a turn is a pretty harsh stick with which to hit an indecisive player and smacks of DM high-handedness. At most, I would only say that the player Delays if they can't make up their mind.
Finally, as a DM, I try to make decisions for the enemies just as fast or faster than the players decide. Lead by example. Don't worry about whether you made the perfect move or not; just do something fun.
Everyone has 1 minute to take their turn. If they don't decide in that time then their character waits until next round. That'll keep them from talking through combat too much.
In my opinion that is too punitive. Negative reinforcement always leaves a bad taste. So turn it around - Everyone still has one minute to take their turn. If a player decides what to do within that limit they get a small reward; nothing earth shattering but enough incentive to get their attention.
I'll let you know how it goes, I plan on instituting this at my next session.
Everyone has 1 minute to take their turn. If they don't decide in that time then their character waits until next round. That'll keep them from talking through combat too much.
In my opinion that is too punitive. Negative reinforcement always leaves a bad taste. So turn it around - Everyone still has one minute to take their turn. If a player decides what to do within that limit they get a small reward; nothing earth shattering but enough incentive to get their attention.
I'll let you know how it goes, I plan on instituting this at my next session.
I don't think it's too punitive. Reason being... if you've got 4 players, each player not only gets his 1 minute, but also has 3 minutes worth of time to decide his next action while the other players are taking their turn and probably another minute or two while the DM describes the monster's actions. That should enough time to make a decision as simple as where a character moves to and what he does when he gets there. As a player AND as a DM, I can't stand it when a fellow player is goofing off, not paying attention, burning up his cell phone then has to have everything repeated to him on his turn and then takes 5 more minutes to decide what he's doing (which often blocks the other players' actions).
That said, it seems like it would actually make combat go smoother if the player's chatter is reasonable and generally being done in turn.
Fighting a troll, a player on his turn might say to his fellows, "get a torch ready!". Another player, out of turn says "I'm Ember Burns of the Fire God! I got this!" Then the oil thrower announces to the DM that he grabs a flask of oil and throws it at the troll. And Ember Burns' only decision will be deciding WHICH fire spell to use and where his character is positioned.
Of course, if the players can hear this discussion, the troll can as well. Mr. Troll may try to kill Ember Burns of the Fire God before the spell + oil kills him.
I don't think it's too punitive. Reason being... if you've got 4 players, each player not only gets his 1 minute, but also has 3 minutes worth of time to decide his next action while the other players are taking their turn and probably another minute or two while the DM describes the monster's actions. That should enough time to make a decision as simple as where a character moves to and what he does when he gets there. As a player AND as a DM, I can't stand it when a fellow player is goofing off, not paying attention, burning up his cell phone then has to have everything repeated to him on his turn and then takes 5 more minutes to decide what he's doing (which often blocks the other players' actions).
That said, it seems like it would actually make combat go smoother if the player's chatter is reasonable and generally being done in turn.
Fighting a troll, a player on his turn might say to his fellows, "get a torch ready!". Another player, out of turn says "I'm Ember Burns of the Fire God! I got this!" Then the oil thrower announces to the DM that he grabs a flask of oil and throws it at the troll. And Ember Burns' only decision will be deciding WHICH fire spell to use and where his character is positioned.
Of course, if the players can hear this discussion, the troll can as well. Mr. Troll may try to kill Ember Burns of the Fire God before the spell + oil kills him.
That is very different than what the OP is talking about.
What the OP is talking about is on every player's turn a lot of the group giving opinions and advice about what to do slowing down the pace of combat. That is VERY different than someone not paying attention until it is his/her turn.
And I agree with you completely. In fact I have a player in my group who was doing just that (specifically playing games on her phone). It got so bad that I seriously considered banning all electronic devices at the table (talked it over with several other group members and they were in agreement), but it turned out to not be necessary. Once she got the character she really wanted, realized that her character did not have to attack in combat (something her character is not very good at), and was able to shine on a number of occasions she is a lot more attentive.
Of course, if the players can hear this discussion, the troll can as well. Mr. Troll may try to kill Ember Burns of the Fire God before the spell + oil kills him.
I fear this is the worst of all options to handle it. I mean, that doesn't sound very fun.
Would that be "Trolling" the players with punishments? :p
Of course, if the players can hear this discussion, the troll can as well. Mr. Troll may try to kill Ember Burns of the Fire God before the spell + oil kills him.
I fear this is the worst of all options to handle it. I mean, that doesn't sound very fun.
As a get back, or punishment, no it's not fun. As something the players think would make for a plausible and fun challenge, it's fun.
Of course, if the players can hear this discussion, the troll can as well. Mr. Troll may try to kill Ember Burns of the Fire God before the spell + oil kills him.
I fear this is the worst of all options to handle it. I mean, that doesn't sound very fun.
Would that be "Trolling" the players with punishments? :p
Actually this is totally exceptable. If pc communication is in combat, npc should also hear and be able to respond. If its out of game player communication, then its not in play. In game its in play, obviously
Unless you fighting deaf opponants.
Sometimes, I do have "shouting across the field" and "native languages" are great for this. Besides, is the motive really about creating a tense moment, or is the motive about punishing the players for table talk and taking long turns?
There are better, non punishment ways to handle this issue.
I always go on the assumption that players tactical "table talk" is not spoken in game. I already stated that players are experts, and heroes who have a natural instinct on how to operate as a unit. Even though the players might have to (out of game) make a plan, the heroes in the game aren't actually shouting across the field very often.
Sometimes, I do have "shouting across the field" and "native languages" are great for this. Besides, is the motive really about creating a tense moment, or is the motive about punishing the players for table talk and taking long turns?
There are better, non punishment ways to handle this issue.
Sure, but in some cases, the players are completely good with this method, in which case it's not punishment. In our group, we do it because there are 2 extremely tactical players, 3 fairly tactical members, and 2 completely UN-tactical (is that even a word?!?) members. If we didn't throw a rein on the horse, one of the more tactically minded folk would basically be moving aiming and pulling the trigger on the 2 non-tactical folk, completely out of a desire to 'help', and the untactical members would let it, since they "don't know this stuff like they do".
It was easier all the way around to just say "Hey, if you shout out instructions across the field, the monsters can hear it, too, okay?"
Now, what happens is before someone's turn, someone might say "Fighter! Come help me flank this orc!" or "You go, then I'll go!" so that the monster doesn't have "time" to react. Inelegant, but it helped OUR group a lot. Also, we get a lot of mileage out of the additional languages now. The group tries to pick oddball languages to master, so we can use it to speak in combat and have a good chance of not being understood.
As most posts on here, YMMV, but it's not a simple "be a bad DM and punish them or be a good DM and let them free" issue.
Of course, if the players can hear this discussion, the troll can as well. Mr. Troll may try to kill Ember Burns of the Fire God before the spell + oil kills him.
I fear this is the worst of all options to handle it. I mean, that doesn't sound very fun.
As a get back, or punishment, no it's not fun. As something the players think would make for a plausible and fun challenge, it's fun.
Well, under the same principle, the players can also use innuendo/bluff skills or use personal codes and languages to keep the enemy from becoming savvy. I agree it wouldn't be fun if a DM were to punish the players for working together... and I like seeing them get excited about a hastily-concocted, but plausible plan... and to be honest... for story purposes I am rooting for the players to succeed in an interesting way.
Further, having played awhile, I kind of jadedly overlook some stuff that was once very important details. Players are going to find their way around telling each other stuff without enemies knowing (we all speak Ignan, so that's the language we use in battle). It might be fun to play that out, but it's just as viable to assume that it's true.
Player: Use that wand we got in the last adventure and I'll follow through with the power of the ring we got on the mountain tower adventure last week.
That could get tiresome and combat needs any help to speed it up you can give it... to keep it as fun as possible.
I always go on the assumption that players tactical "table talk" is not spoken in game. I already stated that players are experts, and heroes who have a natural instinct on how to operate as a unit. Even though the players might have to (out of game) make a plan, the heroes in the game aren't actually shouting across the field very often.
Sometimes, I do have "shouting across the field" and "native languages" are great for this. Besides, is the motive really about creating a tense moment, or is the motive about punishing the players for table talk and taking long turns?
There are better, non punishment ways to handle this issue.
I feel that taking inordinately long turns punishes the other players (in the worst way possible). I find it rude to everyone when it gets to a players turn and he still has no clue what his basic strategy is going to be. If tactical table talk makes things go faster or more interestingly or clarifies some confusing point, I'm all for it and it does make the game more fun and battles more intense. I recommend a timer. It shouldn't take more than a minute, tops unless the player has a plan that is really out-of-the-ordinary and requires some explation. If the payoff is something of entertainment value for the other players, it's worth it; otherwise it's just disrespectful of the other players' time.
My one concern is that I would feel punished if I were a PC in a game, and told another PC "Why don't you fireball that area right here...?" and the DM wanted to play "Gotcha" or get coy about it. I still feel that having monsters do this is ill advised, but you are doing it in a way in which players are having fun, so there is no problem. There are probably a lot of situations where stories and plot advancements can occur from shouting instructions. Also, not every goblin in the world is 100% fluent in (insert language, you people use "common" in your game?)
I also find it rude to the whole table to take long turns. This happens in Magic: The Gathering and sometimes, Axis and Allies and Settlers of Catan.
I have never had to resort to a timer, and in a game where I have power to take an action to speed things up (DM Powerz) I would come up with something, because in games where I don't have the right to interrupt the "Eternal Turn Guy" it drives me insane. This simply gets into the methodology of the solution. Is the proposed solution itself problematic? (in your case, no.) Is the proposed solution capable of creating a condition worse than the original situation? (doesn't look like it here.) A big one; Is the solution making use of Positive/Negative Reinforcement or Punishment? That is where I start to get antsy because it feels juvenile.
To conclude, I have seen many models in games to regulate pace and speed. There was a King Arthur game where there are 2 "turn pogs" and when you are done with your turn, you pass your pog. If there is a pog on the table, you may grab it. 4 players, 3 pogs. The goal is that players who are slower will receive less actions/moves than players who are quicker. (Think, the card game speed converted to a tabletop battle game). I have seen models where it was a timer (I think Chess Timers are good help, if you have one).
I don't dislike your solution to the problem; I simply feel it could present a few of its own quirks (some bad, some good) and it seems to me like you make the best use of it, and that is what matters most. It is less about the model used to regulate turns and more about the regulator itself, the fairness of arbitration and your descriptions seem to describe good handling.
When I first started playing with my current group, they had played together before, but not in years and I hadn't played 4e at all. The DM gave us all the time we wanted and would make helpful suggestions and even reminded players of underused abilities. After the 3rd or 4th game, he introduced a 2 minute timer. If he thinks we're taking too long he'll bring it out. After the 4th game he also started having the monsters react to our shouted tactics (I'm probably the worst offender of this, being the only one in the group with RL tactical experience). We picked up some polyglot gems to keep the bad guys from knowing the plans and I try not to say "I told you so", when bad stuff happens cause they go against said tac advise.
I agree with the above that say these characters have been fighting beside each other long enough that player advise (at times) should be translated as characters logically reacting to "knowing" what their teammates are capable of and likely to do in a given situation.
alphamagnum wrote:
Like everyone has said, talk it over with the DM and group. Metagame (OOC) strategy talking is perfectly acceptable in most cases, aside from the 'spur of the moment' decisions. 4E combat CAN be really slow, thanks to the numerous powers/static mods/etc. But once the players get it memorized that 'Power X' and 'Power Y' work well together it speeds up. Our table had a LOT of bogged combat in the begining thanks to information overload. Now, we can run combats fairly quickly and it's our DM who's slow on the go (he DOES run every monster on the field).
Anyhow, again, just talk it over, have everyone learn the ins and outs of their own character and how the synergize and viola! Problem solved.