|
To what extent, if any, do you allow your players to talk to each other during combat about combat tactics and what strategies to be employed/actions their character will take? For example, do you allow them to discuss spell use (Should I drop down a fireball or cast haste) or to discuss combat positioning (You want me to go behind this guy to flank him), etc.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I concur with Seth. Those are my touchstones, too.
I'm reasonably lenient at conventions. Different regions have developed different playstyles, which means that players bring different expectations to the table. There's a lot of grief that some communication can alleviate.
If I get a sense that a player is spinning her wheels, asking for advice as a cover for thinking, I'll make some suggestions (at low levels) or ask her if she wants to hold her action and delay (in mid- to upper levels).
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I concur with Seth. Those are my touchstones, too.
I'm reasonably lenient at conventions. Different regions have developed different playstyles, which means that players bring different expectations to the table. There's a lot of grief that some communication can alleviate.
If I get a sense that a player is spinning her wheels, asking for advice as a cover for thinking, I'll make some suggestions (at low levels) or ask her if she wants to hold her action and delay (in mid- to upper levels).
Sounds about my barometer too. We've some new spellcasters, who are still learning the tactical strengths and weaknesses of their spells. Suggesting they might split their magic missiles if the first one or two drop the target, reminding them to move the flaming sphere, etc. makes sense to allow. I'd hate to see a player not have fun because they don't find out afterwards things their character should know about their abilities.
|
|
Thanks for the advise. I've just started gming and wanted to know your thoughts. On the other side of it, I just got my first character to high level and I've had instances where I don't know which course of action to take. I was further frustrated in that the group I was playing with were far more advanced in their knowledge of PFS system.
It's all a learning curve and trying to work it out as I go. I have learned more as I gm (forces you to learn rules and not rely on gm/others) than I did as a player.
(Ps. Sorry for typos n grammar. On my iPhone)
|
I consider it as a free action and the pc's must keep it very brief.
I would also add that I consider the pc's as talking to ea. other in common unless otherwise stated. Therefore I go with the fact that the enemy might very well hear and understand what they are saying and adjust their actions to said pc's comments.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I consider it as a free action and the pc's must keep it very brief.
I would also add that I consider the pc's as talking to ea. other in common unless otherwise stated. Therefore I go with the fact that the enemy might very well hear and understand what they are saying and adjust their actions to said pc's comments.
joe, do you keep the PC chatter and player chatter seperate?
If I'm telling the caster "You can hit him with magic missiles until he goes down, then switch targets." That's not Samiel telling Mira how to use her spell. That's Matthew telling Jessica.
Just like if the GM reminds me that I can move my spiritual weapon, it's not Erastil telling Kodiak, it's the GM telling Matthew.
|
|
I try to ground this issue in roleplaying, so no, your 7 Int PC can't tell the other PC to do something brilliant, nor can PCs have a back and forth deliberation of best tactics mid-swing. The exception being if a new player is being coached (and wants to be coached).
I try to lay this out beforehand that players by default are their PCs first, themselves second. Also I give some time at the start for PCs to share common tactics. It surprises me how many people hardly even check what the other PCs can do.
I also have found many times some players can get bossy or try to orchestrate the whole. This helps assuage that.
I do this with non-combat situations too. The PCs should have their game plan ready beforehand. Again, exceptions for newbies, especially if they find themselves surprised to be the best face character in the party.
Cheers.
|
|
I consider it as a free action and the pc's must keep it very brief.
I would also add that I consider the pc's as talking to ea. other in common unless otherwise stated. Therefore I go with the fact that the enemy might very well hear and understand what they are saying and adjust their actions to said pc's comments.joe, do you keep the PC chatter and player chatter seperate?
If I'm telling the caster "You can hit him with magic missiles until he goes down, then switch targets." That's not Samiel telling Mira how to use her spell. That's Matthew telling Jessica.
Just like if the GM reminds me that I can move my spiritual weapon, it's not Erastil telling Kodiak, it's the GM telling Matthew.
yes, I keep it separate. It depends on what they are saying.
Players discussing tactical movement during an encounter is pc telling pc. GM giving player advice/options would not be.It is very situational. If players are new to pathfinder/ rpg's in general then I treat it as coaching and don't worry about it.
I go over this, aid other and a few other things before the game.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I consider it as a free action and the pc's must keep it very brief.
I would also add that I consider the pc's as talking to ea. other in common unless otherwise stated. Therefore I go with the fact that the enemy might very well hear and understand what they are saying and adjust their actions to said pc's comments.
I agree with this concept, though in practice I've found that the vast majority of "table talk" in combat isn't actually happening in-character right there in the battle.
That is, when the cavalier's player reminds another player to leave a charge lane open, that's probably not happening in-character; the PCs probably got that established as S.O.P. either during the umpteen days they spent traveling together already or in basic training, and the player (who doesn't owe his continued existence to memorizing things like that) just needs a reminder of what his character already knows. Same with giving the rogue a flank, etc.
Similarly, spellcasters know their spells really well. Prepared casters spend an HOUR preparing their spells EVERY DAMN MORNING, and spontaneous casters have every detail of their spells PERMANENTLY COMMITTED TO MEMORY. So when the players are discussing where to put the AoE for maximum effect (or whatever), I don't treat that as in-character dialogue; rather, the caster is already intimately familiar with EXACTLY how his spell works, and the table-talk is just the player catching up with what the character knew and acted upon in the blink of an eye.
The main things I feel like would actually be in-character speech are the dissemination of Knowledge check results, and reactions to circumstances (calling for healing, suggestions for how to deal with an unanticipated development, etc). Some of this is naturally short ("MEDIC!!!"), so in practice the only thing I feel like I usually have to watch is when one person gets LOTS of info about a monster and needs to communicate it to the rest of the party.
EDIT: Kinda ninja'd.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A fair bit for a few reasons
1) (most) players do this as a hobby. Their characters do this as semi trained quasi professional experts who have proven their worth through natural selection. If they were as inept as the three stooges they would have blown themselves up or been eaten before third level.
2) Audible information is fleeting and inexact. Visual information is constant. If at the start of combat you say "these squares are cliffs" , half an hour later the player forgets, tries to run through them, either they didn't remember or thought you didn't mean that particular square. The character should still see the cliff though.
3) Keeps the players from getting mad at each other when somoene runs into the archers shot or bullrushes someone away from the rogue flank sandwich.
|
|
It's very situationally dependent but I usually let players go the first time in a session they launch into a discourse, but then warn them that they can't do that in "real game terms" because it would take too long. Generally I accompany this with a brief statement about how long his/her turn is taking and how we want everyone involved fairly equally. (Sometimes the latter point requires a longer discussion after the scenario has ended.)
1a)Player: "Guys, I'm thinking about going around behind the second one from the right. I won't get an attack in but that does give the rogue a charge lane. If she charges she can get a sneak attack. Alternatively I could pull out my bow and shoot it from here but it doesn't do very much damage. Would you guys rather I move or shoot?...You know, I think I have a tanglefoot bag. That could stop them. Maybe the best thing I can do is use my wand of bless. Would you all like bless?"
GM: (at high levels I stop the monologue about halfway through) "A round of combat is six seconds. What you just said took considerably more than that. Go ahead and take your action, but next time think about what you can say in six words or so."
1b) Player: "I'm thinking about moving behind the one on the right..."
GM: "That's all you have time to say. Go ahead and take your turn."
Locally we have one player (with multiple seeker-level characters) that LOVES control casters. He is notorious for hemming and hawing over his options at each turn. It's a little trickier to cut him off because of his reasoning though.
2) Player "I think this situation calls for a stinking cloud. Does anyone have the ability to see through it? Or I could just try to charm it. (To witch) do you have evil eye? Or..."
GM: "OK that's way more than enough for one round."
Player: "Presumably we would already have talked about our characters abilities before now. In a home game we'd know them, but since this is PFS..."
GM: (silently muses on how the questions being asked are only specific to this exact situation)
My personal opinion - which I never have enforced but try to hold myself to - is that you can shout out orders/advice on your turn but if you ask a question you really wouldn't be able to act on the response until the next round.
Of course, it's NOT reality. I always allow taunts, explanations, and pleas for mercy to go on as long as dramatically necessary.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Sounds about my barometer too. We've some new spellcasters, who are still learning the tactical strengths and weaknesses of their spells. Suggesting they might split their magic missiles if the first one or two drop the target, reminding them to move the flaming sphere, etc. makes sense to allow. I'd hate to see a player not have fun because they don't find out afterwards things their character should know about their abilities.I am fairly sure you dont get to do that with Magic Missile. You pick your targets at the time of casting and the spell specifies you pick targets before rolling for SR or dealing damage.
Also if they are throwing out 3 missiles that means a minimum of level 5 which is well past the newbie stage (barring certain caster level hijinks).
"Expect table variation" You don't have to make a full attack decision until you resovle your first attack, I don't see where it says you have to pick your targets at the beginning of the salvo, just that you have multiple targets as an option.
And we were dealing with a new player who never had a need to split her fire, so reminding a tired player how their spells work shouldn't be an issue.
|
|
Do yall adjust the level of communication you allow if the party was caught by surprise?
GM: Surprise round - they attack (No party talking allowed as you were surprised)
Initiative
Party members turn (based off init): Allow communication but must keep short as you are still reacting to the situation.
vs.
GM: You see a band of orcs up ahead
Party: allowed to freely discuss all tactics and how they will attack, perception check by monsters to see if they notice and possibly party loses surprise round (if any)
Initiative
Party Members turn: allow communication freely if along lines of previous discussed strategy but limit it if they go to new one
(Is this getting too formulaic?)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
2) Player "I think this situation calls for a stinking cloud. Does anyone have the ability to see through it? Or I could just try to charm it. (To witch) do you have evil eye? Or..."
...
GM: (silently muses on how the questions being asked are only specific to this exact situation)
I'm trying to figure out how "How are people affected by one of the spells I prepared?" and "Do you have this hex?" are in any way specific to one situation.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
"Expect table variation" You don't have to make a full attack decision until you resovle your first attack, I don't see where it says you have to pick your targets at the beginning of the salvo, just that you have multiple targets as an option.I am fairly sure you dont get to do that with Magic Missile. You pick your targets at the time of casting and the spell specifies you pick targets before rolling for SR or dealing damage.
Also if they are throwing out 3 missiles that means a minimum of level 5 which is well past the newbie stage (barring certain caster level hijinks).
You must designate targets before you check for spell resistance or roll damage.
I guess it doesn't actually say they all fire at once, but since the only reason to go one at a time would be to see if the target goes down, but you can't roll damage until all targets are designated... well, that doesn't leave much practical purpose for having them fire sequentially.
|
|
I'm trying to figure out how "How are people affected by one of the spells I prepared?" and "Do you have this hex?" are in any way specific to one situation.2) Player "I think this situation calls for a stinking cloud. Does anyone have the ability to see through it? Or I could just try to charm it. (To witch) do you have evil eye? Or..."
...
GM: (silently muses on how the questions being asked are only specific to this exact situation)
Edit: spoilered 'cause it's a derail.
I did say that the second case was a lot more difficult to cut off. He has a valid point about knowing what your companions can do.
The thing is that when the wizard starts talking about using his bonded object to dig into his spellbook and cast transmute rock to mud I start to think "would any adventuring group really sit around talking about that situation ahead of time?"
It's one thing for a fireball sorcerer to ask about improved evasion and resistances. Or a conjurer to ask who can deal with a cloudkill ahead of time. It's a completely different thing to say in the middle of combat "I think I might cast stinking cloud this turn. Mr. druid player, did you prepare gust of wind today so you can blow it away before our melees move in?"
It's a legitimate tactic but also situational, so I really have a hard time saying "that's not really kosher." (Prior vs. immediate planning kind of thing.) The issue is that if the druid says "no" he moves on to Plan B. Then C. It can be 10 minutes of real time before he actually takes an action. (And I have threatened/ followed through with putting him on delay. The thing is it DOES involve the rest of the table since he's asking about their capabilities. Most other players haven't minded, it just slows the whole game down.)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You must designate targets before you check for spell resistance or roll damage.I guess it doesn't actually say they all fire at once, but since the only reason to go one at a time would be to see if the target goes down, but you can't roll damage until all targets are designated... well, that doesn't leave much practical purpose for having them fire sequentially.
Huh, learn something new every day.
|
I consider it as a free action and the pc's must keep it very brief.
I would also add that I consider the pc's as talking to ea. other in common unless otherwise stated. Therefore I go with the fact that the enemy might very well hear and understand what they are saying and adjust their actions to said pc's comments.joe, do you keep the PC chatter and player chatter seperate?
If I'm telling the caster "You can hit him with magic missiles until he goes down, then switch targets." That's not Samiel telling Mira how to use her spell. That's Matthew telling Jessica.
Just like if the GM reminds me that I can move my spiritual weapon, it's not Erastil telling Kodiak, it's the GM telling Matthew.
Are you referring to doing this on a round by round basis, or are you referring to do this on a missile by missile basis?
Because my understanding of how targeting spells work, is you have to pick your target for each portion of the spell upon finishing the casting.
|
|
Sounds about my barometer too. We've some new spellcasters, who are still learning the tactical strengths and weaknesses of their spells. Suggesting they might split their magic missiles if the first one or two drop the target, reminding them to move the flaming sphere, etc. makes sense to allow. I'd hate to see a player not have fun because they don't find out afterwards things their character should know about their abilities.I am fairly sure you dont get to do that with Magic Missile. You pick your targets at the time of casting and the spell specifies you pick targets before rolling for SR or dealing damage.
Also if they are throwing out 3 missiles that means a minimum of level 5 which is well past the newbie stage (barring certain caster level hijinks).
"Expect table variation" You don't have to make a full attack decision until you resovle your first attack, I don't see where it says you have to pick your targets at the beginning of the salvo, just that you have multiple targets as an option.
And we were dealing with a new player who never had a need to split her fire, so reminding a tired player how their spells work shouldn't be an issue.
Multiple Missiles in magic missile or rays in scorching ray are not party of a full attack. They are part of a standard action.
|
If it's rules/map layout or similar, unlimited - that's out-of-game player talk, not in-game character talk.
If it's tactics, roleplay or similar, a "lenient" 6 seconds worth. I usually call that as 4 lines of dialogue (2 back, 1 or 2 forth - between 2 people). At that point, I say to the players "okay, no more talking - what are you doing".
I make an exception for a party who have a character close to death to extend that time to a reasonable amount (about 5 minutes of real-time discussion). The reasoning, aside from keeping the game fun and time management, is that players usually already had an "unspoken" understanding before the encounter/scenario began, and they have an idea of what each of them are capable of and what they're carrying. We just don't go through that in minute detail every session until it actually matters.
|
|
Huh, learn something new every day.
You must designate targets before you check for spell resistance or roll damage.I guess it doesn't actually say they all fire at once, but since the only reason to go one at a time would be to see if the target goes down, but you can't roll damage until all targets are designated... well, that doesn't leave much practical purpose for having them fire sequentially.
Yep, I learned this too late and cost a character his death.
|
|
Upon review my first post really makes it seem like I'm being a mean stickler to my players. Let me qualify it by putting the following in front of it:
"When I need to put a cap on party talk, here's what I do."
I really only cut off the amount of talking in two cases.
1) I need to move the party along. My original reply came after I ran a Convention Special last weekend. My table finished only one of the encounters before time was called to move on to the next encounter (the whole room moves at once). A lot of that was the whole "tactical optimization" that was going on. So if it looks like time is going to be an issue, I will start putting a cap on.
2) The player is monopolizing table time without actually taking any actions (and really should know better). A 9th level monk shouldn't need to spend 5 minutes each round soliciting advice from the other players. I'm more lenient on this if it looks like the other players don't mind.