Out of Character Strategizing

[LavaRox]

Hello All,

New member here. I am on my first Pathfinder quest and new to the game, although our campaign has been going on for most of this year on a bi-weekly basis.

Introductions aside, we have two party members who really slow the game down, one who kinda doesn't pay attention when not their turn, and always asks advice as to what action to take, and the other player who is all too happy to almost forcefully persuade not only one player, but does this to all the players in the party. There is A TON of OOC "No don't do that, do this instead" every player, every turn, every round. And he practically calls for a vote for each players action.

Not being the DM, but not exactly a brand new rookie player anymore, what have you all done to curtail OOC strategizing?

[Darksol the Painbringer]

If it's a new player who doesn't know what they can all do, I don't find it unfair for a fellow party member to provide options for the newbie to use, as long as it's done in a teaching manner, to demonstrate what should be possible in normal combat situations.

But, if you have one player being overly disruptive, you might want to try talking to that player about their behavior. If that isn't working, you might want to talk to the GM or other players about it and see if they are willing to work with the rest of the group to implement something for all involved that limits other players playing their character for them.

[Super Zero]

I really don't mind some strategizing at the table. For the players the campaign takes place over a long time, and it's a game, and they're only focusing on it at certain times, and they're relying on your description to understand what's going on. For the characters previous events are very recent, and it's life-or-death and they're highly experienced, and they're together all the time for days at a time, and they can actually see what's happening around them.

Some degree of meta chat between players can represent those hours-long campfire conversations we probably didn't play out verbatim. The wizard might have mentioned the spell she has ready for this kind of situation, so you recognize it when she uses it and know what she wanted you to do. Especially for a new player who also needs help with rules and trends and things. In excess it's annoying just because--come on, get on with it!

The alpha gamer (a term I've heard in cooperative board games more than in RPGs, but it sounds like the same thing) is a different problem.

[LavaRox]

Super Zero wrote:

I really don't mind some strategizing at the table. For the players the campaign takes place over a long time, and it's a game, and they're only focusing on it at certain times, and they're relying on your description to understand what's going on. For the characters previous events are very recent, and it's life-or-death and they're highly experienced, and they're together all the time for days at a time, and they can actually see what's happening around them.

Some degree of meta chat between players can represent those hours-long campfire conversations we probably didn't play out verbatim. The wizard might have mentioned the spell she has ready for this kind of situation, so you recognize it when she uses it and know what she wanted you to do. Especially for a new player who also needs help with rules and trends and things. In excess it's annoying just because--come on, get on with it!

The alpha gamer (a term I've heard in cooperative board games more than in RPGs, but it sounds like the same thing) is a different problem.

The Alpha Gamer is exactly the right description. It makes the game so much more about one person instead of the party. Perhaps I should talk with the GM and the rest of the party about limiting meta chat on a timer, or having the GM/foe treating it as in character conversation to kinda slap some wrists???

[Castilliano]

What Darksol advised, though I also push toward players being in character during battle. So they can call out advice (etc.) on their PC's turn, but not talk player to player. This does let the enemies hear it too. I can't imagine having a player forced to act by the vote of others. Who'd want to be coerced so?

Then if there's a newbie player, I either sit them either next to myself or a designated player I can trust will guide them well (or whoever brought them I suppose). That one person gets to advise. Frankly I find newbies tend to make better decisions than some veterans since newbies are not gambling on meta-knowledge that's often incorrect.

"Let them run their character" is something I've been thanked for saying.

With regular groups, there's a time for out-of-character conversation and strategizing before and after the session, but during the session they're in character by default except when asking clarifying questions. "Unless there are any further topics, we're going into character now."

[Rikaya Softclaw]

IMO, out-of-character strategizing is perfectly fine for a few reasons. One of them is that you're trying to roleplay characters who're generally a lot smarter, more experienced, and adept at teamwork than the players actually are. Unless they actually talk things out amongst each other their performance can drop way below what it should realistically be. Combine that with the players often having a lot less information than the characters do, such as body language of their companions, and it becomes even more important.

People who're making the game unfun for the others, though, are a completely separate issue and absolutely a big problem. I hope it's resolved well!

[Watery Soup]

Castilliano wrote:

"Let them run their character" is something I've been thanked for saying.

Very specifically, it helps when third parties at the table say this (not letting the advisee get to the point where they scream "Let me run my own character!").

It also avoids any debate about whether the advice is good or not. Because more often than not, the advice is strategically sound, but still unwelcome.

If players welcome the advice, I let it go, even if one person is essentially playing two characters.

[Campbell]

I generally do not mind it, especially for a new player. However everyone gets to play their own character. Someone being that insistent about what other players should do would result in a table discussion.

[Ubertron_X]

If the counseling is done in a "teaching the game" manner thats usually ok, however if done in a "armchair general" manner that's generally not ok.

Also, letting players do mistakes enables the GM to make "mistakes" too without immediately invalidating the encounter. And the difference in play experience in between playing a monster mechanically perfect or thematically perfect is huge. If both sides play highly tactical and or at a competitive level usually immersion is the first victim.

[Ascalaphus]

I think you should have a talk with the GM. Even though the GM is also only a mere human being, the GM is also the natural chairperson of each gaming group. When things at the table aren't going well like this, the GM is the natural person to steer things a bit more in the right direction.

The simplest ways the GM can do this are with light but to the point reminders:
"Bob, let Alice play her own character please", and "Dave, it's your turn; Charlie, you're up next". Sometimes things already get a lot better when you tell people that they're up next, then they can already make a plan for their next turn.

For "Bob", the person who's always telling others what to do, the GM may need to take them aside for a bit and explain that being helpful is good, being overbearing isn't.

It sounds like your group could do with a bit of group strategizing however. This reminds me a bit of a campaign I was in long ago. We'd had a combat that went poorly - we won, but it was all hard work, and not a lot of teamwork. Everyone was off doing their own thing. Afterwards, in character, I called a meeting of the party to discuss how that went and talk about our tactics. The next fight, which was against similar enemies, we were working together more (focusing fire on the same enemy, flanking) and it went much more easily.

Instead of doing the armchair general thing in the middle of combat, if you have a talk outside of combat about what everyone can do in combat, you can all form a picture of what you could do together. So the rogue explains to the other players why it's important that they set up flanks. The bard can talk about how if other people Delay for a moment, the bard can sing first and then other people get the benefit of bardic performance rightaway instead of waiting till next round. The cleric can explain that if you run too far ahead, you're out of range for healing spells. The paladin can explain just how the positioning works for the champion reaction, so that other characters can gain the benefit of it.

And if you have any clue (through info gathering in town, looking at tracks and clues, interrogating enemies and so forth) about what kind of enemies you're expecting, you can come up with strategies as a group before going in.

If all the players have a good idea about they can offer the rest of the group, what the rest of the group has to offer, and what the rest of the group needs them to do, then your inexperienced player doesn't have to ask so much what they need to do, and your armchair general doesn't need to push people around so much.

[thenobledrake]

As a GM, I have a strict rule that if someone asked for input, anyone can give some - because it's a game we're playing and we don't have to be so serious as to insist all talking be done by characters, rather than by players.

I have a similarly strict rule that if no one asked for input and you're giving it anyway, I'm gonna tell you to shut up, especially if you are interjecting because you think your suggestion is better than what the other player wanted to do - because, again, it's a game and we don't have to be so serious as to aim for every action taken being the best possible choice for a situation or some such nonsense that drives this "let me help you get this right" style of play.

And in the rare occasions when I get to be a player, I will still suggest that people not give their input unless someone asked for it - it'll be a "how about we don't do that?" instead of a "knock that off." though, unless it is another player trying to tell me what to do which always gets the most stern response.

[HumbleGamer]

Igneous wrote:

Hello All,

New member here. I am on my first Pathfinder quest and new to the game, although our campaign has been going on for most of this year on a bi-weekly basis.

Introductions aside, we have two party members who really slow the game down, one who kinda doesn't pay attention when not their turn, and always asks advice as to what action to take, and the other player who is all too happy to almost forcefully persuade not only one player, but does this to all the players in the party. There is A TON of OOC "No don't do that, do this instead" every player, every turn, every round. And he practically calls for a vote for each players action.

Not being the DM, but not exactly a brand new rookie player anymore, what have you all done to curtail OOC strategizing?

In my games I use a timer for players as well as for me ( even though moving x creatures would be a little more difficult to deal with, it's affordable).

- Every player has from 6 to 12 sec ( elite - beginners) to decide what to do. If it is too slow, then it will suffer from a circ malus to its actions. This simulates the battle pressure and speed up combats.

- During a combat, talking to other players in terms of game and strategy is allowed, but it would be like to have the characters yelling to each other, so the enemy would be able to better understand their tactic, eventually who is the blaster or the healer, and what they plan to do ( gather them all so I can fire a fireball!).

This manages not only to take them concentrate, but also contribute to bad choices and errors.

Finally, even if it would be a homerule, I tend to reroll all the initiative at the beginning of any turn ( because the combat is dynamic, and even if before a monster was quicker than the character, things could change in a glimpse during an actual fight).

This will prevent stuff like "the mob will go down cause we are first in initiative, so you can wait to heal me and instead contribute to blast it).

[Salamileg]

I think it's also fair to assume that characters would discuss combat strategy in their free time. Our characters spend a lot more time together than we do, so you can say that the players discussing strategy in combat was actually your characters discussing strategy when walking to a dungeon.

[Captain Morgan]

Super Zero wrote:

I really don't mind some strategizing at the table. For the players the campaign takes place over a long time, and it's a game, and they're only focusing on it at certain times, and they're relying on your description to understand what's going on. For the characters previous events are very recent, and it's life-or-death and they're highly experienced, and they're together all the time for days at a time, and they can actually see what's happening around them.

Some degree of meta chat between players can represent those hours-long campfire conversations we probably didn't play out verbatim. The wizard might have mentioned the spell she has ready for this kind of situation, so you recognize it when she uses it and know what she wanted you to do. Especially for a new player who also needs help with rules and trends and things. In excess it's annoying just because--come on, get on with it!

The alpha gamer (a term I've heard in cooperative board games more than in RPGs, but it sounds like the same thing) is a different problem.

This articulates my feelings quite well. A certain amount of table talk just represents the lens players have to interpret things their characters would know, in much the same way that armor class represents how thick a creature's hide is combinated with how well it can evade blows. It is only a problem if it is making the game less fun (like an alpha gamer can) or the players are relaying information their characters shouldn't have yet. For example, if a player starts telling everyone how to exploit the sin vulnerability of a particular demon before anyone has rolled a knowledge check.

[Megistone]

Ah, so many times my Witch's meatshields have put themselves where she intended to throw some AoE!
Sometimes she changed her mind, others she didn't. After all they have proved quite impervious to Webs, besides the vision limitation, and they didn't suffer too much from the occasional Black Tentacles either.
She wouldn't put them inside a Cloudkill, but she did fire a Lightning Bolt through one of her companions who had blocked the way when there was a big brute to finish. Between high reflexes and evasion, her buddy took no damage: I must say that while they haven't yet learned to understand her battle plans, they at least know how to come out of them (mostly) unscathed.

Once, the party entered a dungeon knowing that the enemies were waiting for them. Despite the Witch's warnings the two martials were tricked into advancing while more enemies encircled the group, cutting off their way out and more importantly reaching the Witch who, let's use an euphemism, doesn't shine for her AC and HP stats.
She barely survived and had to Dimension Door everyone to safety, where she harshly scolded her friends. But what can she expect, when her familiar is actually smarter then them?

This is to say: in the group I play with I'm probably the most experienced player, but regardless, there are times when different heads have different ideas, and mine is not necessarily the best one.
I tend to chime in a little bit, expecially for things my friends may have not thought about (like: 'You know you are going to get an AoO that way, don't you?'), and my character does, on her turn, give instructions to the others; but when they choose a different action, I keep my mouth shut and just think that maybe I should really turn them into frogs this time! :D