|
Questions for all the PFS GMs. What is your ruling when
1) During each rounds - the players discuss how each PCs should move or act before anyone acts. Is it ok? How long do they have? Should be this only at the beginning of a turn?
2) Before someone takes their turn - Other players have a discussion about what that person should do.
3) After PC takes their turn and before the next PC starts, other players tell the PC that he should be there since it is blocking his charge lane or that he really should move over there for flank or use a different spells, etc.
4) If when a player turns comes up and they are not ready. How long do you give them before you put them on delay?
Thank you for your input.
|
Here and there is one thing but sounds like its way overdone. Players need to play their own pc. Coaching new people on options and consequences of ea option is more what pfs is about. Then let them decide.
They should also know that its their pcs discussing tactics on battlefield and the npcs can hear all this if they understand the pcs language.
Encounters will run longer. As for # 4, hard to put a set time on it. Let players know whos next so they can formulate a plan of what to do on their turn.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1-3: I'm fine with players trying to play as a team and not as every lemming for himself. But it shouldn't take too long or become absurdly elaborate, and I don't want one mastermind telling other people how to play.
"Could you end up there instead so I can flank" or "give me some room for the fireball" is fine. Trying out a dozen placements to see which one is the absolute best, isn't.
4) There are two variants of this: the character with too many options that needs to choose one that he thinks is good (usually a caster), and the player who commits to a choice but doesn't have his numbers together (like a fighter who has to add up Power Attack on his weapon stats every round). The second one can be coached to be better prepared. The first one needs to learn that an 80% perfect choice is also good enough.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
This is one of the few things at the table I’d say I do well, so I feel it prudent to chime in.
To answer your questions briefly:
1. As long as I can finish the scenario within time, they can discuss strategy as long as they’d like. They shouldn’t, however, play other people’s characters (as mentioned upthread) or trash talk someone’s combat choices. In character talking though should be limited to the 6 second turn (e.g. they can’t deliver a speech in a single turn).
2. This sounds like people playing other people’s characters, which I personally hate. It can be done with best intentions (if the PC belongs to a new player), so my answer here would be case by case.
3. If this follows some form of player one saying they move to point X, and player two says “hey, could you move to point Y for reason Z?” I have no problem with it. Also, often at my table, players don’t move their own minis while taking their turn, instead choosing to delegate that task by asking something like “can someone move me into melee?” or “I full attack.” In both cases, if another player would like them to be positioned more tactically (like a five foot step when they full attack), I have no problem with it. This is a group-based tactical combat system after all.
4. Early on when people are learning, I give them enough slack with queuing up their actions to get the hang of it. Ultimately, there’s no real excuse for this after you’ve been playing a bit. Combat is a focal point of Pathfinder, after 10 games you should know what your character does in combat enough to plan your actions.
To get more indepth:
My stance on how to run combat in PFS is informed by my understanding of Pathfinder’s roots. As we know, Pathfinder is based off D&D 3.5, which is based off a few miniature wargames (Chainmail chief among them). Why do I bring this up? Because at it’s core, combat is something Pathfinder does well and in great detail. It is on the higher tactical end of the RPG spectrum than other systems by making use of a grid, having detailed combat rules, and a nearly limitless amount of combat character options. And it does this because it's combat system was based of tactical wargames. RPGs like Fiasco or the new Star Wars RPG aren't, and are more RP focused.
As a result, combat is where tables can run into speed bumps. There are detailed rules, but they are scattered between several books. New options are added constantly, and even the basic elements of combat do change from time to time (reach weapons and diagonal squares, you’ve been called out). It can be hard to keep up with it all, and table talk can often begin over rules confusion. Furthermore, as a group tactical activity, it’s encouraged for your players to discuss strategy. When your players don’t is where they tend to run into more problems. My history with Society play also plays a key role in how I run combat, with over 300 tables under my belt.
I find that to run a smooth combat you need to master your end of things. Know the basic rules as best you can and know your NPCs inside and out. Have a solid system for tracking initiative and HP, and make sure your NPCs know what they’re doing when their turn comes up. If you have those things on lock, you can allow some wiggle room for your players to discuss strategy. Give them that edge. If they stop making progress and are spinning their wheels, make a suggestion (if a newer player) or delay their character (if more experienced). The more combats you run the more expedient you’ll become and the less table-talk will eat into your slot time.
Anyway, hope that helps!
|
|
These are all great discussion and advice. They are all very helpful. Thank you.
Just one more note - for number 4. I ran across a few players that are veteran, but don't pay attention until you tell them it is their turn. It takes a while for them to figure what to do, mainly because they need to figure out what is going on. One thing that I always do in these situation is to announce who is on-deck. It helps most of the time, but there are a few players still are not ready when it is their turn. With new players, I would never rush them, but these veterans, I don't know what to do.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
GM perspective: combat chatter is in-character. If you're calling out strategy to one another, and the monsters can understand Taldane, then you're giving them your plans, too.
Which is why it's often wise for PCs in a home campaign to all invest in the same obscure language. I recommend Gnome.
Player perspective: It is sometimes the case that the person who acts right before my character deeply messes up my carefully-prepared actions. "Oh, you dropped Black Tentacles between us and the bad guy?" That's always fun, but it sometimes flummoxes me, and it can take me a minute to develop a workable set of tactics.
|
|
For people that take a long time for turns set a time limit. Say before the scenario "if you don't know what you're doing within 30 seconds when it's your turn you're delaying." And then enforce it on the veterans.
Also talking is a free action you can do outside your turn, but using diplomacy to make a request to an NPC is a standard action. So their chat should follow those guidelines, Now the PLAYERS don't need to say so little, but their decision needs to be simple and short.
Like suggesting someone flank is what the character says, then the player explains why (since characters would know such combat stuff)
Keep charge lanes clear, or stay away from what I'm going to fireball, or I'd like invisibility or Will someone give me a flank buddy.
So the "request" needs to be short and simple. If you're trying to yell at them to hide behind a specific pillar and cast a specific spell then the enemies will be hearing that too.