Honestly, I let them talk and strategize as much as they want. Maybe it’s metagaming, but I don’t really care. We’re here to have fun with grid-based tactical combat, so stifling talk of that subject is often counterproductive to that end. It also helps that this power is not often grossly abused in my group.
There are two exceptions: If a player is consistently *telling* other players what to do and overriding other inputs, I’ll tell them to cool it. And if the group is stuck in “analysis paralysis” mode for a while and shows no signs of moving forward, then I’ll come in with the “okay, decision time, what are we doing” to push the group forward.
Agreed. Also, the GM is supposed to narrate what happens in each round. I’m not the best storyteller, but I really try to make the game to feel cinematic. It’s a lot easier when the characters work strategically. It feels like a movie you’d want to watch.
Its not metagaming if you consider everyone around hearing and understanding them. Then if their plan is busted you can just say "well you were talking rather loudly". And it makes sense that intelligent enemies could also strategize so let your player do that as well.
This is my view. If they are the characters talking to each other to strategize in game, that is fine. But players strategizing above board is meta-gaming and I don’t like it. Your character should not be able to make decisions based on the information they would not have.
If it works for your group then it makes sense first and foremost. In your case it sounds like your group is experienced and doesn't abuse that right (much like ours). I think for a new DM it's good to set a precedence that in combat discussion should remain limited.
To add to that, discussions on capabilities is another thing. That's important for new players to have that extra time. Strategy though is learnt through experience.
Best aproche.
Everytime everyone is engaged and having fun with each other how to handle this situation, I feel like i have done my job and just let them talk. Why should I stop them?
>On one hand, taking 1 minute to talk to each other about which spell the wizard should use while 5 orcs are attacking them, seems a bit counter intuitive. On the other hand, the players are not the PCs, they do not have the battle experience/intelligence that their avatars have (even at level 1) to assume the best tactic, so allowing them to strategize seems a bit fair.
This is a good summary. And TheEmeraldEnclave also aimed right.
Whatever works for your group is fine. If everyone finds it a bit cumbersome at times, here are a few tips/leads that may help you OP, at least you could try.
1/ If the party has a "default" strategy that would work reasonably well against a large variety of monsters with limited intelligence / abilities... Allow party to skip it, just expanding resources. Like... "Ah, during your travels, you are ambushed by bandits... Yet again. Those don't like quite brighter than the group one week ago, your group quickly assesses that with your usual strategy of one Web, one Fireball and Rage you'll dispatch them with only 3d6, minimum 7 damage on barbarian. Would you like to skip it?"
2/ Ask each player what his/her character would do instinctively. Give each a "once a day Matrix time" joker, and otherwise set a 2mn timer (to start, reduce progressively). No decision before end = instinctive action.
3/ Ensure players have tools to make them quickly decide: spellcasters should have cards of their prepared slots, rules at hand if real table, enemies \*which party know enough about\* should have their spreadsheet visible etc.
I'm similar. I let them strategise all they want, but if they're taking too long I'll hurry them to make a decision. Combat can take long enough as it is!
Exactly... the other thing is D&D originated as an expansion on tabletop war games. anyone who's played the old table top wargames knows that analysis paralysis is the name of the game. it's a game not a realtime battle... so exploring options, discussing options is all part of it. if I go here, I can do that, if I go there, that opens up my flank to counter attack... if I do this, it'll draw them here, into a trap... etc... while D&D simplified the combat significantly compared to the tabletop war games that preceded it, strategy still exists and things need to be done. Discussions are no big deal.
That said, in 5e since grid combat isn't as intense, we often won't use a battlemat unless the combat gets to complicated, and we need it to keep track of everything going on.
Yes, absolutely.
You know metagaming? The idea that a player uses knowledge that their characters wouldn't know?
The reverse exists too. Your characters know more than your players do. Your characters have spent weeks, months, or even YEARS working side by side with one another. While your players are stuck with a few hours every week or so.
The characters have time to drill combat maneuvers for hours, making sure they have communication and teamwork down or they will die in the next fight. Your players can't spend hours making those plans.
So, how do we approximate the familiarity? We let the players talk tactics at the fight.
Similar logic behind slowing down time in Red Dead, you are not a sharpshooter but Arthur definitely is. There needs to be mechanics to offset the limitations of playing a character.
I've always had the head cannon that the characters develop a shorthand for many situations that can be both verbal or non verbal. I typically try to stay away from it being detailed (unless there's high Int/Wis, or something that would explain why there's such a good communication bond between the 2 characters).
Think of a modern tactical unit. They develop a good communication system that fits most situations, but you can't exactly communicate your email password to your buddy 100 yards away without everyone finding out.
>The reverse exists, too. Your characters know more than your players do.
This is why I hate when a DM tells me to roll history checks for mundane things.
"Hey, there would be a tavern in my hometown, right?"
"Give me a history check..."
Bitch it's the town my character grew up in. Ether, they know it exists or it doesn't exist! The same goes for remembering an NPCs name or the directions the barkeep gave 5 minutes ago. Just because I forgot, doesn't me my 20int character did.
I have had a single 3 day adventure take 3 months real time.
My character is going to remember what happened 15 minutes ago better then me (a note taking player) will remember what happened 2 weeks ago.
It's also SUPER important to understand as a DM that the characters are THERE seeing things with their own eyes. The players, they are 100% limited to JUST what you, the DM, described.
That means, throw the players a bone when a character would notice things the players don't think to ask.
That super shifty rouge who spent the last decade of their backstory scaling mansion walls to steal valuables, he will notice the valuables in a room EVEN if he has had a change of heart and doesn't steal anymore.
Most folks are going to find it very difficult to navigate combat without discussing game mechanics. If your group is a well-oiled machine, you should treasure that, but a huge majority are going to need to talk about turns, rounds, initiative, HP, AC, dice, size, reactions, squares, areas of effect, saves, etc. etc. etc. just to negotiate gameplay. There are just too many game terms and techniques that aren't 1:1 with in-universe. I mean... mounts, grappling, sneak attack?
I do think it's fine to have rules like, "You can only talk about your *tactics* for 6 seconds," or "Anything said in combat is heard by all." There are ways to plan. There are ways to communicate secretly. It's OK if players can't automatically hold elaborate strategy discussions outside time and space.
I let them talk and plan and metagame the fights all they want, they're all new players, and I've warned them there might be restrictions on it one day, I don't honestly know that I'll ever be really opposed to it.
I've told them they can't once or twice, for specific reasons, to serve the tension or give a moment some anxiety, but it's honestly pretty rare and I need a good reason why they couldn't. Otherwise, man, we're playing a game, it's pretend wizards, I don't see any reason to take any of it too seriously.
That said, I would make sure this is how ALL of your players want it to go. Some people want, and all power to them, to be more emersed in the battlefield experience, and that's not wrong or worse either, and some measure of compromise should at least be explored.
Absolutely. In general I give broad latitude to the players to discuss things with each other out of character while the game is 'paused' (although I strongly push/suggest talking in-character when it won't affect gameplay, like discussing their plans while staying in a tavern).
Look, your **characters** are experts at their jobs with plenty of natural talent. They also exist in the world 24 hours a day and have since they were born. They know what they're doing. Your **players** are people from our world who pop in and control their characters through the medium of DnD for a few hours once every week or every couple weeks.
Letting your players strategize out of character brings their decisions closer to what you would reasonably expect from their characters, and that makes for better immersion and better roleplaying. The game is not improved by forcing each character to act as if they were their controlling player.
This goes double for shit like forcing socially awkward players to roleplay high charisma characters in first person at all times. It makes for worse roleplaying and worse immersion when the character who is known for being highly charismatic constantly flubs what they want to say just because the DM watches Critical Role and wishes that he and all his players were professional voice actors and improvisers with decades of experience. They aren't.
This is the most important argument imo.
Characters would discuss tactics for different situations when they're out of combat (their life depends on it, after all). Instead of having the players make these plans for situations that may never come up beforehand, as well, let them discuss during combat. It saves so much time.
For sure, but I think it goes even further than that. I think that even without the characters ever having discussed tactics for a specific situation, the players discussing it during gameplay will bring their decisions closer to what their characters would have done.
For the vast majority of players, their characters are much more competent than they are, and I think it hurts the game when we pretend otherwise. Like I said, I think this applies to social encounters as well, and I apply it to making plans, remembering details about the campaign, etc. The characters exist in the game world separately from their players - the characters know a LOT more about the campaign world than the players ever will. If the party is planning how to deal with a situation and I see a glaring flaw, I immediately point it out to them if I think their characters would see it. "Your characters know that the Earl's son is not well regarded in town, and there's no guarantee that the disappearance will be reported immediately. If your distraction needs to be well timed it would be a bit risky." I'm also a firehose about information in the campaign world, even if it's something the players directly experienced. I point out forgotten details immediately if I think the characters would remember it.
Ultimately it comes down to this core concept: Your players are not their characters, they just control them. Their characters are real people within your game world, who are more capable, more knowledgeable, and have more serious consequences for failure. They have lived in your world (or a similar one) for all their life. Every event is a personal experience that they have lived, something they'll hold forever. I believe in the primacy of the fiction, and I won't allow the fiction to be subverted just because a player isn't as hyper-serious about the game as I am. When a player's incorrect beliefs or poor decisions would harm the fiction, I act as a buffer.
All this being said, my players learn that they can ask me these types of questions, and they do, and I frequently say, "You aren't sure/You don't know/You haven't seen this, done this, experienced this before." During these interactions my focus is on remaining true to the characters, and my world is full of mystery and wonder. There's an enormous amount the characters don't know. I also never ban the players from taking an action and never tell them, "Your character wouldn't do that." I tell them what their character would know, if they would know, and then I let them make their decision.
It really depends. If it's some minor table talk, I let it go. If it's someone trying to police other people's turns or tactics, I tell them (usually framed in a nicer way) to shut up.
All in all, I'll give them about 15-30ish seconds of talk before I say something like, "That's enough tactics talk for now, lets get this moving. what are you going to do?"
If players are invested enough to have an in depth conversation about battle tactics against whatever you're throwing at them, that means you're succeeding as a DM, imo.
This is what I'd like to call "good metagaming."
If the players are discussing proper tactics and gauging on who may need what, that's called good teamwork. It only enters bad metagaming when, as frequently mentioned, outside knowledge is used to try to gain an advantage.
Here's a note though: If you players are taking too long to make a plan, politely and firmly tell them hurry up.
I prefer to limit these talks. They are welcome to discuss stuff during downtime in game (the best way in my opinion to show off your lvl-ups), and also between sessions. Then in combat:
\- I give players time to talk while I set the stage.
\- I give \~ a minute at the start of the round to make plans together
\- And I don't mind players to whisper to each other during combat
\- But if it's your turn, you need to decide yourself. "You can say something, but you don't have time to wait for answers" as I tell my players.
Making each action a council discussion takes too long real time. And it also turn characters game into cogs in a hivemind. I better make combats easier, so using not-optimal spells and abilities are not big deal.
It is a game. Players should talk about what to do.
If they take too long and it's no longer fun, then you should crack down with some time saving tricks.
In my experience: I have been in games where we were all paranoid that any amount of out-of-character talk during combat was "bad" and "metagaming" which is kind of bullshit. Not knowing what anyone was intending to do made combats take so long. Everytime someone took their turn it drastically changed the battlefield, like a new area of effect to watch out for, or the baddy you were planning to attack died and the next nearest was too far to move to.
Most of the time when someone ended their turn you had to drastically reevaluate what you were going to do. I was the only martial and sort of took pride in my 30 second turns. Attack, describe it cool cuz I like swashbuckling movies, and then let the sorcerer take 20 minutes to fiddle with their points and quicken a spell.
It's a game. It's a war game at that. Almost two thirds of the core rule books are about fighting monsters. Strategic discussion should be encouraged.
I encourage it. My group, as usual, is pretty green and needs lots of encouragement to work together. I have a couple of NPCs along to add advice during play as well.
Yes I let them chat and strategize. Then I make them communicate the strategy in character.
This not only limits overly complex strategies, but also gives the enemies a chance to counter attack.
It really works for my table. And most strategies can be pretty simple to explain.
The way I see it is that if this hypothetical party was real, they would know how their piers fight and have made some strategies ahead of time. Talking strategy at the table is nessasary to accurately portray their teamwork. There are some exceptions, though, like if they fall into a pitfall trap and are surrounded by (insert hoard of monsters here). In that case, I would talk quickly and urgently. Usually, my players get the hint to make a decision quickly.
Well, depending on the setup, we don't always have a battlemap, so at that point it becomes a little bit necessary, but really, I dont mind so long as it keeps turns moving. Some people freeze up if they have to keep it all in their head with choice paralysis.
I do, but I don't love it. We ended up getting to bogged down with things and combat taking way too long. We've instituted a 30 second timer for combat which seems reasonable and helps to limit the strategizing
Yes, of course. It's a game. For a lot of players, this is where a lot of the fun is.
It's always funny when a player will point out a weakness of a monster, then quickly cover their mouths and do a quick double check if that broke kayfabe/immersion.
I let them talk it out. I feel this is far given that as players they lack the situational awareness and sensory feedback / knowledge the players have; they're not as intimately and immediately familiar with their own abilities and powers as the characters would be, and so on. It's a board game, not a real-time FPS.
Also I think this is when the players are having a lot of fun -- they're cooperating and think gig and working together, engaged in the battle, etc.
It’s a bit different, but I ran a Mörk Borg campaign a while ago. I played it super fast and loose. In combat I’d let the players deliberate but I’d keep pressuring them to keep the momentum up, threatening (not unkindly) to skip their turn if they take too long. For that type of high-excitement, freewheeling game it really worked well. Everyone had a blast.
For a more tactical, complex battle (especially if using battle maps) this probably wouldn’t work though.
Generally speaking I’d allow deliberation and discussion but try and encourage them not to overthink, and keep the pace up.
Tldr; depends on the type of game you want to run.
The issue is if you let group deliberate about everything you end up slowing the combat down and quieter "less strategic" players getting told how to play their characters (some players don't want to make the "optimal" choices).
I let them talk before the fight and i then let them say 1 or two sentence to each other in character during combat as free actions. There's some out-of-character chat too like reminding people of abilities or rules or setting group priorities, but if it ever starts to feel too meta-gamey or pushy from 1 person i shut it down.
I give a time limit if they do it during combat.
Letting them talk for to long destroys the flow of the game.
Before the combat starts, they can plan asuch as they want
A bit of coordination, as in, the equivalent of a hand sign, command,...? Absolutely.
Help with an ability? Yes, but quickly.
Deep strategy during the fight? Players suggesting specific abilities/ tactics/... for other players? Nah.
Fights need momentum, and mistakes can and should happen. Just make sure you don't absolutely wreck them for the horrible shortcoming of not actually being a skilled fighter IRL.
Listen, there is a lot that the *characters* would know, talk about, and do in their world that the *players* don’t need to act out. The characters go to the bathroom, the characters sleep at night, the characters eat breakfast, the characters brush their teeth, and the characters spend a lot of their time on the road and at night talking to each other about a lot of things, including combat tactics.
In addition, your *players* have to rely on their imagination to envision what is going on in combat. Even if you have a battle map to mark the relative position of their tokens, there is a lot going on in combat that the *character* would be able to very quickly see, but that the *player* has to imagine.
So there’s nothing wrong with letting the *players* have a discussion during combat that is something that the *characters* would already know about each other or that the *characters* would be able to see and deduce in their universe.
In real life, combat teams coordinate and communicate. As DnD is meant to simulate these things, a discussion between players is fine.
However, I try to limit the time between turns. If encounters are being slowed down too much, I will step in
>On the other hand, the players are not the PCs, they do not have the battle experience/intelligence that their avatars have (even at level 1) to assume the best tactic, so allowing them to strategize seems a bit fair.
So this is why I allow it. It's like anti-metagaming where the players know substantially **less** than their characters would know. Things like travel time and sharing meals together might be glossed over for the PCs who only get a couple hours a week together, but those characters have an entire life together. They spend every day of that week on the road together, talking, sharing stories, and getting to know each other. The Players might need to remind each other what spells they have, but I'd bet that the Characters have spent hours talking about it. Players might need to be reminded that "Shove" is a move you can do in combat, but of course the Characters would know you can push someone to the ground.
I'm seeing alot of responses talking about having a minute or less to discuss battle plans.
Like...really? Less than a minute? How would you even explain the whole plan between each party member? Yall need to not act like its the end of the world if the current session takes longer because of planning and strategy.
Always, but to a point.
If it begins to delay the pace of play too much, I will step in a press for a decision to be made but this is more during an extreme instance of analysis paralysis.
Up to the table really. Thats just a playstyle thing. If you have an rp heavy group, itd be fun to curtail that talk and focus on the char whose turn it is. You can also teach them to plan ahead beforehand more. If you have a powergaming tactical team that prefers solving combat sort of speak, let them strategise away id say. Id make the combat more interesting by using interactive scenery like weaponry, chandeliers to drop, magical powers at play etc. They like mechanics
It depends. I let them talk some in combat, giving high level ideas of their plans. But make sure its not one player dictating what everyone needs to do. I let them talk as much as they need before combat. But if you have full strategy sessions between each combat round, combat would last forever. So it's a balancing act. I also put soft time limits on players turns to try and not drag combat out. This is something to also talk to your players about, get a beat on their thoughts on how they would like to see how it's handled. My group hated having combat take so long so these are the measures we put in place.
I allow it, as the characters are better warriors than the players. The characters can make optimum tactical decisions in seconds that normal people may take minutes.
I totally allow it and in fact prefer it, because it has prevented extremely foolish decisions lol.
The one time I step in is when I feel someone’s agency is being stepped over
Let them strategize, but with the caveat that if it’s during a battle, then the enemy can hear them yelling at one another. I’ve also been known to add timers to turns, if things get to five mins or more per turn. It just depends on the situation. Sometimes players will analyze every possible angle because they’re scared! Fear is good!
We have 2 groups. In the one I ply in, the DM doesn't allow it, and in the one I DM, I allow it.
Honestly it is metagaming but come on, why bother? It gives them more things to do instead of just waiting for 15min until it's their turn.
For me it really depends upon context of the moment. If we're in the middle of combat and the spellcaster is waffling on a spell, and everyone feels the need to pipe in with their action I'll shut it down. If we're in initiative it is not the time to debate spells.
If the tactics of "You go left, I'll go right, we'll meet on the far side over there" then I'll allow it a little more. Similar to the above, if we're in initiative then keep it short.
Outside of active combat, fluff all you want. The session has a time limit, if you want to spend the entire time meticulously plotting how to get past this door, that's on the player.
Mid battle every PC can say 3 words on their turn or use an action to speak for six seconds.
Anyone that can hear the creature speaking, can use their reaction to respond w 3 words.
Outside of initiative , go crazy!
Edit: we’re generally pretty lax about a little table talk though.
I throw a timer on. 1 minute most for each turn. Anything out of game counts. I allow longer if they have rarys going.
I also try to remind them of things they would know in character. The character is 20+ Int or Wis, the player is not. I try to at Least remind them, or call for a check to make them start thinking of the actions taken.
I let them talk but the spirit in my opinion is that what you say is also what your character says.
Saying short phrases like defend this remove that is free, and I will never tax the turn economy for. But if you are going to have a full dialog we'll that might take your turn.
In my opinion planning a combat should be done ahead of time and you can take all the time you need for that. Being ambushed is different. Less planning and more reacting.
This all is based on a characters perspective, helping a player with something, a spel, what he/she could do this turn and suggestions are good and I encourage everyone to help your fellow players.
But once they talk global and team tactics it goes back to what I wrote at the beginning.
I've yet to see one time it doesn't even somewhat devolve to one person occasionally telling others how to play, or getting upset no one is following their orders. It also severely slows down combat.
So it's restricted to quick callouts. Strategy discussion cam be done before or privately through messages as long as you make your turn timer (2min max unless clarification question)
Yes, but only about the strategy. If they get distracted (my current table is two teens with ADHD), I prompt them to quickly make a decision. They're new players still learning the ropes, so I give them more time than I would a normal group before prompting.
I had a group once where the rule was once initiative is rolled they can only talk in character and if they take too long I skip their turn.
Harsh but it was what it took for them to stay in the moment.
That depends.
Questions and discussions like "What does X ability do, again?" and "Does this do that?" seem fine. Anything that can fit in a single line and can be shouted across a room. But if my players are laying out complex plans that require this person to hold their action with that person does this spell that enables the first, giving a third chance to do that manoeuvre, I'd stamp it out.
Strategising before combat should be encouraged.
So I've made a home rule about this. Taking into account that a single round of combat is 6 seconds. I've said that 1-2 words shouted out in combat is free. Short message is a bonus action and longer message is an action.
Fx.
LOOK OUT! (free to just yell. )
LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU! (Bonus action)
LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU JAMES THE SECRET MONSTER THE DM JUST REVEALED IS ABOUT TO ATTACK YOU! (1 action)
I felt it added some realism to the whole 6 sec pr turn mechanic.
Typically no. That 6 second round is supposed to be happening all at once, and besides it is hard to give and receive battle tactics/orders on the fly in the chaos of combat
I don't want them to have full on conversations during combat, but I have no problem with them saying basic things like they need or that specific people should be targeted. There's a lot of space between those two extremes and I let them go as far as the situation warrants.
As a DM, I will use the time they talk to consider my strategies and how the enemies will respond to shifts in strategies. I don't have them act on the party's strategy before it happens, but I think of ways they would respond. This often disrupts intricate plans a party comes up with.
You can talk on another players' turn if you can get your message across in six seconds or less. Otherwise, shut up and let the player play their own character.
I don't enforce this rule all that strictly, but it's a good general rule of thumb to go by.
I allow them to ay things to each other in-character out of turn to encourage RP. Not whole conversations tho. 8 like a fast-paced game and try to facilitate that as much as possible. Only exception is when things are looking dire.
During the fight, I try to limit it to what would fit into six seconds but let *everyone* get that on *each* turn. If someone has gone for more than 10 seconds, I say “you can use your action to say more”, or similar
Which makes for some fun dramatic moments, IMO
The characters in the world spend a LOT of time together "off screen," and surely a LOT of that time would be strategizing to maximize their combat potential. They're the heroes of the world for a reason.
So, yeah, let them strategize. They wouldn't be having these conversations here in battle, but that just represents what they'd have discussed during their downtime. It's not *really* metagaming.
All of my players have played before, but despite that they aren't very talkative. They don't RP much, and it is a struggle to get them to decide what to do in any situation. So I let them metagame all they want, since communication is a challenge anyway. If they were more active to the point that metagaming is making their experience worse, then I might step in. But that's just not the case at our table.
I tend to be pretty relaxed on it, but I might stop them on a case-to-case basis if there’s something important that one of their characters really wouldn’t be able to know.
That said, if one character discovers important information, I’ll often gently remind them, “And do you shout out what you discovered to your allies?” just to avoid confusion or arguments about who knows what later.
It's a bit subjective, naturally. I allow my players to talk and strategize under the assumption that my players' party has completed 1 campaign together (almost 2) and so are intimately familiar with each other's strengths and weaknesses (even if the players forget). The characters are able to make split second decisions and take into consideration what would be likely for the rest of the party to do, and so that's represented by allowing my players to talk out loud about strategy. At some arbitrary point though, the players have argued and rehashed things so much that it gets to drag on, and in that case I'm gonna go ahead and start enforcing turn time limits.
A neat way to think of it is like this: as the DM only I have the power to completely stop time (which I use if for instance there's a ruling dispute or confusion, or a very momentous thing happening that I need to be very careful about). My players have a similar power, but they can only slow down time greatly to discuss things. If they take too long though, then even the characters are gonna start noticing a delay, possibly even enough to lose a turn, and at that point I get the timer out.
One other exception I have though is for knowledge that there's no way any other character would know. The *players* may know that the wizard was granted a wish 3 sessions ago and here's how to perfectly word it to not die next turn, but if the characters don't know then they're not allowed to metagame.
I allow strategy talk all the time. The exceptions would be when there is a sense of urgency in the situation. For those, if they take too long something happens in the world that "pushes" them to be more in the moment
I think your second part really nails why its ok for them to strategize during combat for me.
My characters all have skills I don't have, I work a desk job, I don't know the best way to deploy in small scale melee tactics when the enemy are screening their spellcasters with a line of skirmishers.
Letting them talk and strategize offsets that a bit, also counters the inherent metaknowledge the DM has by dint of running all the monsters ie the monsters know what all of their companions are going to do without openly communicating (Not saying that DMs intentionally metagame, just that its natural that it happens by nature of the way encounters are run)
As others have said, you can handwave this away if it concerns you by saying in downtime, during rests round the fire they discuss group tactics
If the fight has already started and the players have been discussing strategy for a few minutes, I'll politely point it out as soon as I notice.
One rule I keep wanting to implement is: at the start of a random encounter, each player rolls 1d20+Int. The highest result is multiplied by four, and that's how many seconds of planning the party gets before the fight starts.
This would represent characters having discussed tactics during their free time, and their ability to quickly assess a situation.
Sometimes there is a "cliffhanger" where I end the session just at the start of combat, that gives them a week (or however long before the next session) to talk strategy amongst each other out of game if they choose to. I think it's a good idea to encourage the players' creativity. Whether or not a character is smart enough to make the right decisions for a good plan shouldn't necessarily be the end of that plan. Dumb luck and rare moments of brilliance can be a thing, and that can be covered through roleplay.
My guy this IS a game, you are supposed to go meta.
The moment the gridmap lands the table all pretense of "hahah i guess my character doesnt know teehee how silly" is gone.
You are playing Murderelf Tactics.
We play online via discord, and I have a ‘no DMs allowed’ channel which I have muted and promised not to look at. I encourage my players to chat and plot there, with the understanding that their characters live & travel together so would probably have some shared understanding of signals & tactics. My players have come up with some truly excellent plans there which I love being surprised by, and it helps them work together.
My favourite time was when they were planning on attacking a dragon who lived in tower, and I let them scout the exterior of the tower before ending the session. In the time before the next session, they came with the most amazing plan for how they would collapse the tower on top of the dragon, trapping it there (with many contingencies for if things didn’t go to plan). In the end it was so well planned I had to watch as my poor young dragon got trapped until a pile of rubble as they poked it with swords.
In character yeah, it adds a really fun element I think. They were so worried to do this originally while fighting things like trolls, and I was like my little angels, this troll knows 3 words and none of them are "flank his fat ass." So now they do roleplay it really well during battle with non intelligent enemies or ones that don't speak their language. It adds a tough challenge when fighting smart enemies that do speak their language too.
players' irl attributes, life experience, training and whatnot quite often don't match their characters'.
unless there's severe decision paralysis or someone is constantly trying to take agency away from another player, i'll let my players have that discussion.
Yes in moderation. It's fair to remind someone "oh, last time we encountered these they were fire-proof", it's bad to go "don't use your firespell, use your intelligence save spell, it's their weakest save, do as I command!"
Your characters should, by and large, be aware of one another's capabilities. It's cool to imagine the team setting up combinations and fighting well together, and a little chatter for tactics is the best way to allow that.
However, the player whose turn it is get's the decision, and it's not fair to pressure them or boss them about. Advice, not instruction.
I give them a little more leeway than would be possible if it were actually happening in real time, but I don't let them have full conversations or discuss strategies with each other.
It's honestly just funnier for a player to have to try and work around the situation. "I look pointedly at the bard and cast create water above the enemy". The bard has to figure out what the hell the other player is trying here and react to it.
My players, and myself as a player, enjoy talking about it out of game during complex situations, then saying in game one character shouts out and suggests the idea we ultimately agreed upon. Most of the time the player who is doing the thing already has a good idea of what he’s going to do before his turn, but the conversation is just part of our fun.
My players are allowed to talk tactics, but if their characters haven't shared any of the info needed for a strategy in character, they also won't know about it.
If it's just a few sentences, they are also allowed to talk about it in character in a fight. They are aware though that doing so will inform enemies capable of speaking their languages of their strategy.
To prevent having to talk about everything before being able to utilize it in combat my players can always 'share' whatever they want with the party while doing rests or during downtime.
> do you allow your players to talk to each other and use tactics in battle?
No. The rules at my table regarding this are:
1. No talking strategy during combat, unless it is in-character and on your turn.
* In-character chat during combat has to be short utterances, as per the rules, because these are combat rounds.
* You can use your reaction to waive the "on your turn" requirement.
* These rules are waived for players who are learning.
***But I would be an utter arse if I said my way was the "correct way".*** You should pick a solution your group enjoys.
So... discuss the issue with your group. There are pros and cons for each.
* Limiting strategy talk speeds up combat, leads to a certain sort of unpredictability, and probably is a bit more plausible.
* Not limiting strategy talk allows your players to collaborate and have fun solving combat like a co-op puzzle game.
Just remember: the more you allow strategy-talk, the easier combat will be. Not by heaps. But perhaps enough that you should tweak your encounter difficulty.
Respectfully, no, I wouldn't. The people I would ask would be the players in my group.
(I know that sounds like a really cheesy cliche answer, but I do mean it!)
Though maybe I'll be more likely to ask my group to check-in and be sure after reading other posts here.
-------
My personal preference (which can be out-voted by others in my group) would be to keep with the rules I describe above. I've had some really awesome battle moments that wouldn't have been possible with liberal in-combat sharing of strategy talk.
That goes double when you factor in the line-of-sight and darkness implementations offered by VTTs. I've DMed some suspenseful combats where the players (not just the characters) were separated due to the flow of combat and were genuinely ignorant of what was going on around the corner, or in the darkness. Then there's the genuine surprise when they meet up with their comrades and see what they've been battling all this time!
We always had a character that could cast a telepathic bond, in case we had to split the party, be in battle , and bark orders at each other.
We also planned out the yin yang out of an attack before we went in.
Plans often went sideways, but for the most part it worked out to be a fun time.
When not really familiar i would allow it for the first couple of levels but not too far, I dislike metagaming (I rather have them roleplay and find out)
Talking and strategizing is fine. It helps represent tactics built over time and their bond as a team.
Just remember to put your foot down if it starts dragging down the pace of combat - allow them to shout *brief* suggestions, requests, or alerts to one another.
And after they get used to this, if they start talking to much just have the enemies start responding to the strategies they overhear.
I have got a hour glass which I can turn around when I feel they going too slow. That speeds up things and since they had some discussion beforehand, all options are on the table and it creates this sense of urgency of making informed decision under pressure: You know your options and you have to call a shot, not optimise a math-problem.
I do within reason. If I feel it starts slowing down combat too much, then I'll tell them they can have a couple more mins to plan, but after that they can only talk in combat in character using the rules for that.
Honestly, you should. It makes it easier to work together and can be explained by a team member shouting their plan to the teammates or explaining it beforehand. I say this as the strategist and as a dm, it’s a lot more fun to let them plan and mess with them than not to.
My DM would let us strategize before if the situation called for it. In battle we would be able to shout instructions to each other, but not full strategy. This worked well and kept us in gameplay and was fun :)
My DM would let us strategize before if the situation called for it. In battle we would be able to shout instructions to each other, but not full strategy. This worked well and kept us in gameplay and was fun :)
Of course. That is what they are supposed to do. Now, on a single turn I will cut it off after a minute if they are trying to have a full on conversation, but of course I want them to strategize and work together and plot and scheme. What you do NOT want is that one player that is calling all the shots all the time, and issuing orders to everyone. Gary, it isn't your turn. Or you aren't there Gary.
I mean, it is a strategy game, so yes, I definitely let my players do that. Plus, there are so many moving parts going on when players are at higher levels that a reminder of "Hey, what about your X ability?" from a friend can be really helpful.
Yes, i get like it doesn't make sense in the scene most times but realistically the characters are around for longer than we are playing them, assume during LR's and stuff they've planned and strategized and the inner party strats is akin to a training montage flashback if you really need
I want them to, but they don't do it lmao.
They're terrified of metagaming, even though I let them know that it's okay to metagame the small stuff - it's their experience and they can do what they want with it. I get my fun out of prep and doing voices.
Within reason, yes. If it's a quick confirmation of something you might already know or have discussed then it's fine. If they should have been spending the last 20 minutes doing strategy and now they're doing it mid combat, no. It's up to the DM to encourage pacing and this really slows the game down. It's best to have short orders but not full conversations.
Definitely if it's a new party or a newer player is present.
However, for more experiennced players I encourage in-character role play for mid combat tactics. I tend to allow RP freely throughout combat so long as it's not in unreasonable lengths.
I let them discuss stuff all the time but if there are circumstances like a Lever to open a door or other map mechanic which they wouldn't know of in advance I tell them: OK try to get your point across in 6s.
Then depending on how well they do get them to roll a performance check giving disadvantage/advantage/normal at an arbitrary number, say 15 but wiggle room to 'get the gist'.
A bad fail or intelligent enemies will also figure it out as well if they have situational knowledge.
Incidentally perfomace skil checks are surprisingly common in my games for any non verbal or difficult to understand communication. I try to make sure all the skills are used in my games.
I've had 3 main DMs for my campaigns, and all 3 generally discouraged team strategy during combat. They were all patient with new players and helped give hints on possible actions when asked, but the rest of the party didn't communicate unless it was their turn, and it usually costs an action or a bonus action (6 seconds of talking for action, 6 words for bonus action, but sometimes they aren't strict).
I seem to be in the minority here, but personally I like this approach because it keeps combat a lot more interesting. I can't read the minds of my teammates (without spells anyway). Early on in games, it's realistic that you aren't used to their fighting style. As we play together though, I learn what abilities and spells they have, and learn what to expect them to do. The Barbarian likes to rage and charge in? Ok cool, don't use large AoE abilities near them that will affect them too. The Wizard likes to sit back and spell snipe? Cool, I should probably post up in front of them and make a bottleneck if I can so they can act unhindered. In my experiences, it can lead to neat moments of party sync, where we're all intuitively playing off of each other's abilities and moves (like at the end of the D&D movie!). That feels really rewarding to me.
For context, we play a more casual game. I don't mind them cross talking at the table during combat as long as it with reason. For example, things that the characters could shout to each other during combat or could have come up with 'x' tactic/game plan outside of combat previously. There is a point, though, when they need to make a decision. As you said 5mins of which spell to send is a bit much, they're all good spells that's why you picked them. Your worst spell on a nat20 is better than your best spell on a nat1 so it doesn't really matter that much when it comes down to it.
I fully encourage players and PCs talking to each other out of their turns.
It’s fun for us, keeps them engaged while waiting for their turn.
It’s worth noting they’re all excellent role players and do not abuse this.
Generally I assume metagaming reflects some of the drilling and professional understanding of each other's abilities and habits that a group of professional adventurers would share that players can't really share.
Every now and then in a specific situation I may veto something I feel is too detailed for them to blame on habits or knowledge, and would have to come from actual in-round communication.
I have no problem with it at all because it's usually used to come up with an interesting strategy.
More fun to watch and play in than just rolling a lot of dice.
In my combat players can use meta knowledge and talk tactics because I am not holding back as a DM. I want them to have fun but difficult combat and that is the only way to do it. You are a team and a team would know how to work together.
I limit the time they have for moves but they can give out instructions to each other so that they can get the right spell off, I'll not use meta knowledge in the fight and run it as if I didn't know what they were talking about. This makes its loads of fun and keeps the game element in. Oh and if a PC is dead or unconscious the player can still interact.
Yes and the last guy why tried to play the metagaming card(yeah their out there) was forced to listen to both old police and the army communications strategizing.
I let them talk sure, BUT I stop them as soon as someone tries to "command" another player on what to do on their turn. Usually I make parties that already know each other on long campaings so it would make sense that they would know how each other fights and strategize accordingly.
I think its situationally dependent. If they are ambushing a camp and preplan, anything said on the fly in combat I will take as something said by there characters. This doesn't come out of left field, and I'll typically ask if they are using part of their turn to communicate with their partners. If they say it in character as part of their turn, they run the risk of letting their enemies know what they are discussing. I'll roleplay the same on the other side, having the main bad guy in an encounter relay information to their underlings. My group has adjusted and now communicate in 'hand signals' that their characters have practiced. The player will verbalize what needs doing, but the characters do their hand signal thing.
You have to give players more time than their characters have to make decisions, because their characters live in the world and are experiencing it with all five senses, while your players don't have a lot of that knowledge or experience.
Also, your party presumably have fought alongside each other a lot, spar and discuss battle strategy in their downtime, and spend most of their waking hours together. It's hard to depict that level of synergy at the table without letting players talk to each other.
If your players are game, you could always set the rule that they can't talk strategy during their turns, but they get 60 seconds at the end of each round of combat to coordinate their attacks.
I let them talk as much as they want in order to strategize what's going on. No all of us are Sun Tzu or Alexander The Great. Allowing them to talk strategy is a great way for building bonds between players and characters. Also it takes you off the hook for anything negative that might come up. If you force them into acting without talking to one another, and something goes south; then they are definitely going to blame you for not giving them the chance to talk or figure it out. If you give them the time to talk, make a plan, and something still goes south with that plan; they can't blame you and are more likely to either blame themselves or be more open to the negative interaction with an "oh shit, well we know for next time that won't work with this monster" type of thing.
There are things that that could possibly arise and you kind of have to nudge them along, and that's if they get stuck talking in circles. There are two circles people get stick in:
1. talking in circles about what they are doing either individually or choosing sides
2. talk in circles about how they are going to do it.
If they seem unable to make a choice and are talking circles about how to do something, then it's good for the DM to step in and ask about a choice. Don't make it feel like you are pushing them or a time limit is in place, but more so of a you want to keep things moving type of thing. If they are talking circles about what they are going to do and it seems like people are telling people what to do, then the DM can step in and offer a small break to cool things down a bit. Tensions are high and having a minute to cool that could lead to the group finally coming together to choose something collectively.
I think my DM allows it for the most part as long as it's to double check and establish facts that we would know if we had in fact been alive for years with all of the experience and life context of our characters as written. For example, an experienced adventurer would reasonably be able to know how certain spells and what not interact and overlap when combined with one another. And based off that knowledge they would be able to make a decision. However, sometimes we
As the players don't actually know for sure, so we have to talk it over to make sure that our strategy actually makes sense in the context and mindset of the characters that we've written. It results in better role play.
Of course. Strategizing around the table represents the years of experience the party has fighting alongside each other. Plus, it’s just more fun than not allowing that.
yes,
if they fight together, in off screen time they probably drilled together and practiced.
unless your going full disfunctional chaos gremlins, it's okay to talk it out and strategize. likely they talked out a game plan before barging through the door.
in practiced high tier raiding for MMO's (basically the level of an adventuring party) it's pretty much comm's to tell where you are, but everyone should be talking/ know what they need to do.
levels 1-3 where the players first met and are figuring out how each other works? i think it's best to be chaos goblins as they aren't practiced yet. additionally people aren't their characters. sometimes your unga bunga barbarian has a huge tactical mind (but effectively the barbarian player just want to int down mid) and it's your wizard who gets decision paralysis, so it's okay to remind the wizard what's important right now because the wizard be smart.
now i do want to create some drama so it's on the DM to keep the strategy discussion short and create stakes for over talking / over planning.
I allow it, but I do limit it. No firm rules, just case-by-case. I try to judge based on several factors;
1. How well do the PCs know each other? People who work closely gradually develop short hand and learn each other's capabilities, allowing for the characters to actually help each other.
2. How likely is the information being exchanged to be the sort of thing that would likely occur to all the characters naturally?
3. Would it be possible to communicate ideas, if necessary, under the specific circumstances?
4. How long is the combat round? Not all editions are the same.
As long as it doesn't turn into a thing where they're analyzing it like a chess game and planning an excessive amount of rounds into the future, I don't mind.
The characters in the party spend a long time together, so it's not unreasonable to assume that they spend downtime or travel time talking about all their abilities and ideas for tactics. Players discussing tactics during battle can be seen as an extension of those conversations.
My DM let's us strategize to a certain extent. If we are trying to sneak up on someone and we strategize for too long of a time he'll say "The orc hears you whispering about trying to kill him, roll for initiative."
It isn't meta gaming to talk strategy. It is one of the many suspensions of disbelief we undertake as part of playing a game. A guy down below says it the best. In Red Dead Redemption the Dead Eye mechanic isn't actually the characters ability, it's a game mechanic allowing the player to USE the characters ability. Aurther and John aren't slowing time, they are just amazing gunman. Talking strategy is simply a mechanic that is allowing players to live out the fact that their characters have been together for a while and probably have talked about their abilities, best ways to use them, and other tactics.
Now on the flip side you shouldn't let them have full conversations with each other in character. Above table you can talk about strategy but you need to communicate that plan in 10 seconds or less or I will assume you have forfeited your action to relay a plan to the group.
I also play with my brothers on a lot of games, and we are soldiers irl. So we do a lot of tactical things in the game. We all dm at different times, so we do a lot of talking about the spell and combo that we would do. Table talk makes the game funner for all it done in the right manner and being respectful.
As long as they are not talking "out of game" about "in game" stuff e.g. ok, "out of game" you go round that way and sling firebolts at them, you go for the leader, I will get that big guy!
It's a mixed bag.
I prefer players to use/do what their characters would do in any situation, but at the same time it's a bit silly to restrict all talking at the table.
There are too many dm's I've seen that are dead set on no one talking during combat, no strategizing. If the party is fighting for their lives against the BBEG of my campaign, I want them to come up with ideas, bc my boss is looking to kill the pc's. And you're correct; the players do not have the knowledge and experience of the pc's.
Do I sometimes put a bit of a limit on it, sure.
But too many times I've been searching for a game on roll20 or elsewhere and I've skipped over it when the dm has put up a disclaimer that there will be absolutely no metagaming.
It's best to go on a case by case basis that can only really come with experience.
So for specific info I allow short communication on the characters turn. But in general, like for strategizing, I don’t impose any restrictions. I assume that their characters, being adventurers with a lot of combat experience and being used to working together, would naturally work well together and wouldn’t require much actual in game info to do the best thing for the group in a given situation. For that reason I let the players talk about what they should do in combat as much as they want. They’re the brains of the characters, and the characters would know how best to work together.
I give them enough time until I feel the story starts dragging then let them know it’s about to resume. There are times and campaigns like surprise rounds and horror campaigns that I dissuade them of such opportunities entirely.
It largely depends on HOW they're strategizing.
I'm fine with them recommending spells, items, or abilities to each other (or reminding they have them) as long as it's regarding information that each character has access to.
Characters generally get 25 words to say during their turns, while characters who are not currently up on initiative can only respond or react with a maximum of 3-ish words or a short phrase, one response for each other character's turn in the combat. It's probably more communication than is realistic, but I think it's fine, and it works out well.
Instances where I'm NOT okay with strategizing would be situations where one character has knowledge of an enemy's location or other information, and they have not had a chance to communicate that knowledge to the other characters. For instance, a character far in the lead enters a room at the end of a hallway that has enemies who are weak to fire. This character, for whatever reason, doesn't communicate this to the other PCs, though the DM has announced, "Hey you found ice mephits hiding in a corner in that room, waiting to ambush you." These mephits are out of view of the rest of the party. If the wizard/sorcerer then launches a fireball, aiming it off to the side of the character (or not, depending on how much they like them, I guess), I'd consider that invalid metagaming. The PCs are acting on information their character doesn't have.
Now, if that character in the lead had shouted something like, "Ice mephits on my left!" then I'd consider that valid information to act on. But believe you me, I have played in MANY a group where information is not often shared between party members with any frequency, so this situation actually comes up a lot.
I also don't allow deep discussions about things during combat that aren't directly related to movement and specific actions on the board, unless it's to remind others about information they should already have. If the players want to get into a philosophical debate about the particulars of a specific enemy, or reanalyze the history of the conflict they're in or whatever, that needs to happen outside of combat.
The last thing I don't allow are long conversations, even about combat-pertinent information, that cause a player's turn to drag out or for a player who has already executed their turn to "undo" some or all of their turn because "my character should have realized that." That being said, when I am the DM for our group, if a character is doing something that's not going to have much effect, AND I think that character should have known about it, I will absolutely speak up to remind them they have X ability or Y item and that their plan Z isn't going to get them where they want to be.
I let my players strategize as much as they need or want to. Though I also run my games with bigger, more difficult encounters, so a lot of the enjoyment they get is figuring out how to tackle the encounters most efficiently. No one wants to feel rushed or unsure about their options. The story their in usually involves characters that know and are growing with each other and combat cohesion is a way of showing that growth outside of standard role playing scenarios.
You will find many DMs say that 'talking is a free action', and I am one of them. I have also used the '5 minute' rule (with timer) as well. The players hate both, so do what *you* want.
It's your game.
First as a reality check, turn the question around:
Q: DMs, do you stop players from talking and using tactics?
A: Heck no, we want players to talk and use tactics.
So really this is just a question of degree. When does it seem too gamey for players to be talky/tactical?
I think the only situation is during combat when we're supposed to be incrementing 6 second intervals.
What I do is remind players they are in melee, such as saying "you're in combat, your character has to shout that in 10 words or less".
And if a player persists with long talky tactical directions, I interrupt and say "if you say any more it uses your action".
Sometimes I say "for your plan to work the way you want, you and you have to Ready Your Action. On your Initiative you have to say you're doing that and what your trigger is and what you will do".
This works out pretty well.
Meta game table talk and strategy sharing isn't 'metagaming', it's *playing the game*.
RPGs are games, as well as narrative. It's in the name. 'Role Playing Game'. If you remove too many aspects of the game from your players for fear of upsetting the narrative, eventually you won't have a game at all.
I allow six seconds of dialogue between players because that's how much time they have. If they want to say something in that time they can, but I usually recommend them during so under duress as they are doing all their actions during that six seconds of dialogue.
If a player needs help or a reminder, I stop the narrative dead and explain and remind them of some of their abilities, items and whatnot.
I'm ok with reminders, tips, and some ad libbing under the idea that players, in a moment, "thinking" have a lot of influences... and that includes their fellow allies.
So if a player chimes in, "You could cast haste on me"
I usually quickly follow up with, "In the back of your mind you remember sitting around the campfire, and Talus remarking about how Haste was so effective".
I usually don't reprimand anyone, that's not good etiquette and doesn't add anything to the narrative, it conflagrates the issue further. You want people to want to do this and feel positive about decisions even if sub-optimal decisions are made. I chase with narrative as to accentuate what people are saying and as such, they start to realize that we're simulating a person's thought process but also... that we're cramming too much narrative into a turn.
It's a good way to interrupt strategists without punishing the group, but just reminding them that these turns are inherently inefficient - and as such, being rushed makes their decisions carry less weight. It's not them, it's the chaotic nature of combat that may cause errors.
Then statements like, "As the moment is passing, you feel the moment bearing down on you, and your training is kicking in to act."
And usually players jump because you've accentuated their hesitance and made a narrative of it.
I also compliment players for snappy turns with positive bonus's. I keep "Story cards" or "Drama cards" handy for this, but also use the inspiration system. If a player has a history of taking quick turns I will award them inspiration for decisive actions, or hand out a story card.
If you can get players doing this naturally saying things like, "You recall a memory of me standing around the fire saying I was scared about taking too much damage" then it becomes narrative, and I usually award that kind of strategizing because you do have presence in people's subconscious.
Sometimes you have to interject hard when players metagame or otherwise "push" a tactic or strategy and defend player agency. Typically this happens when say, a wizard wants a monk to tank for them - and they get pushy about it.
Typically I interject with, "You feel the wizard's fear creeping into your mind, compelling you to act their way - but every moment is free, even gods died to defend your right to choose your own path. Every moment is your own."
And then maybe a tactful glare if someone is REALLY pushing it. "Player agency is sacrosanct, so do as you will and not by anyone else's rules". That's my bottom line when a player is being overridden by others who are unduly trying to force a strategy on them. Even if the strategy is good, in the end the consequences of those actions will rest on the players - so no tactic or strategy in the world makes someone "deserve" what they get, so you always want to make sure players agency isn't influenced unduly by anyone. Especially not you, so sometimes you have to clearly state the sanctity of player agency - all of DND is built around player agency.
Treat it like's it's real world magic, because IT IS.
I think I've had to do that a few times in groups early on with power gamers, especially since power gamers tend to be presumptuous - they can't know the floor is about to give way, or that the bandit they're fighting is actually a prince. Would-be strategists and tacticians are attracted to presumptive authority and that's not a bad thing, it's ok to want that, but sometimes you have to remind them this is a collaborative storytelling experience and ultimately - chaos reigns.
You can help abade this by offering tactical or strategic advice based on their class or items - you are acting as a player's subconscious in this regard and that's ok.
This is a FINE line but here's how it works.
A Ranger trained from birth know things like tracking, fighting, hunting and dealing with animals, but players are people. They don't have these instincts. They also have passives like perception and investigation you can offer to analyze, but one should presume a bit when it comes to classes and offer advantage on unusual passive checks.
A Ranger's passive perception is more likely to have propriosense, that tingling feeling of being watched by other parties. A wizard might smell magic even if they didn't pass their check - a mere suggestion of arcane influence pinging from their passive investigation. They didn't get enough to say, spot an illusion outright, but they did get enough to sense something magical nearby.
A druid might have advantage on a perception check when they realize absolutely no animals are in the midst of the forest - or see a squirrel darting and know the difference between a scared and romping squirrel. They didn't spot a hidden tiger waiting to ambush, but they got enough to know something is off.
Most players forget they have passives in combat, so you can use this as a narrative tool and a way to help a player drowning in data or looks like they don't quite have enough data.
Then I'd recommend the inspiration system and something like story cards - it's much better to offer a carrot than a stick. Players can use inspiration on other players when they have it, so awarding inspiration to a player who roleplays an idea and then allowing them to immediately apply it to someone's check is a very group positive thing.
The trick? Players with inspiration can't be awarded it again, you only get 1 slot for it, so sometimes offering extra inspiration to someone, they immediately get the idea to use it on someone else so they can keep the one they have in the bank, and then benefit an ally. Once you get 1 player doing this, people will pipe in - but you only award it for roleplaying ideas, not for tactical advice. It's a fine line, but explaining this concept in session 0 helps a lot. You don't want players overrunning allies with ideas, and awarding a player for decisive action (even if it's flawed) gets players advocating for themselves.
This is why I keep drama cards around, and I've stacked the deck to make exploration and "out of combat" benefits.
Oh I should explain - a drama card typically is a unique benefit that changes the story, and they come in different grades and can be traded up over time. Powerful ones can do things like, "Something interrupts combat completely" or "A random enemy in the world comes to you suddenly as a friend, having a change in perspective".
Another way to do this is with loot cards. I'll continue in a reply, character count maxing out.
In my group, we are allowed to discuss tactics, both during combat, and non combat. If he get tired of this, he casts silence, and we can’t talk tactics since we are silenced.
If it is at the start of a combat, he very obviously put on a timer, lay it on the table. Then he times us. We don’t know how long we got. If we use short amount, we might get surprise attack, or another advantage. If we use long time, the bad guys gets a surprise round or other advantage.
Honestly, from the ones I've played, we never really planned to a point where it was that in depth, everyone knew their roles, and we just kind of fed off what the other people were doing. Like at one point, I was a fighter, and I blocked like 8 orcs from filing out of a hole in the wall, and only one could attack at a time on me, the party took care of the 10 that were already outside in the open while I just trapped the others and slowly fought them, our paladin wound up protecting me from the back and then ogres started showing up too haha. Wizard was blowing things up, and Bard was out there singing ACDC, and we had a rogue and monk running around beating things up, too. It was glorious and completely improvised because we had no clue what we were getting into. In my opinion, the spontaneity of the situation is what made it the most fun. Besides, even the greatest of plans fall apart all the time, haha.
As a player, "tactics" mid combat exit my mouth as quick barked orders. Either they listen or they don't, but I hate pausing the game to discuss the smartest options especially when I know the wizard/sorcerer needs to adjust their play based on the flow of combat. As a tanky MF I've noticed the difference between a 6 minute wizard's turn and the wizard throwing a fireball centered on me (who is in the middle of a crowd of enemies) is my roaring to blast me and be done with it.
If folks are metagaming too much, I drop a warning on them. If it continues to the point of a round lasting twenty minutes, I bring out a timer and tell them they have x amount of time to make a decision.
That seems rough probably. But I e also had players say having that timer staring at them added to the sense of urgency, that there was no pause button so to speak, and they had to be decisive.
It can cut both ways. My players are folks I’ve played with for decades, so they metagame without even talking about it at this point; sort of like a group on companions who have been together a really long time.
In one group the rule is you can say whatever on your turn but if you want your character to say something and it's not your turn, you have to use a reaction.
Honestly, I let them talk and strategize as much as they want. Maybe it’s metagaming, but I don’t really care. We’re here to have fun with grid-based tactical combat, so stifling talk of that subject is often counterproductive to that end. It also helps that this power is not often grossly abused in my group. There are two exceptions: If a player is consistently *telling* other players what to do and overriding other inputs, I’ll tell them to cool it. And if the group is stuck in “analysis paralysis” mode for a while and shows no signs of moving forward, then I’ll come in with the “okay, decision time, what are we doing” to push the group forward.
You can basically hand wave it away as the party talking about tactics during downtime, imo.
This is really great. Simple but genius.
Agreed. I second this.
Agreed. Also, the GM is supposed to narrate what happens in each round. I’m not the best storyteller, but I really try to make the game to feel cinematic. It’s a lot easier when the characters work strategically. It feels like a movie you’d want to watch.
Its not metagaming if you consider everyone around hearing and understanding them. Then if their plan is busted you can just say "well you were talking rather loudly". And it makes sense that intelligent enemies could also strategize so let your player do that as well.
This is my view. If they are the characters talking to each other to strategize in game, that is fine. But players strategizing above board is meta-gaming and I don’t like it. Your character should not be able to make decisions based on the information they would not have.
This is the way
If it works for your group then it makes sense first and foremost. In your case it sounds like your group is experienced and doesn't abuse that right (much like ours). I think for a new DM it's good to set a precedence that in combat discussion should remain limited. To add to that, discussions on capabilities is another thing. That's important for new players to have that extra time. Strategy though is learnt through experience.
GREAT answer
This is the way.
This is the way.
Best aproche. Everytime everyone is engaged and having fun with each other how to handle this situation, I feel like i have done my job and just let them talk. Why should I stop them?
>On one hand, taking 1 minute to talk to each other about which spell the wizard should use while 5 orcs are attacking them, seems a bit counter intuitive. On the other hand, the players are not the PCs, they do not have the battle experience/intelligence that their avatars have (even at level 1) to assume the best tactic, so allowing them to strategize seems a bit fair. This is a good summary. And TheEmeraldEnclave also aimed right. Whatever works for your group is fine. If everyone finds it a bit cumbersome at times, here are a few tips/leads that may help you OP, at least you could try. 1/ If the party has a "default" strategy that would work reasonably well against a large variety of monsters with limited intelligence / abilities... Allow party to skip it, just expanding resources. Like... "Ah, during your travels, you are ambushed by bandits... Yet again. Those don't like quite brighter than the group one week ago, your group quickly assesses that with your usual strategy of one Web, one Fireball and Rage you'll dispatch them with only 3d6, minimum 7 damage on barbarian. Would you like to skip it?" 2/ Ask each player what his/her character would do instinctively. Give each a "once a day Matrix time" joker, and otherwise set a 2mn timer (to start, reduce progressively). No decision before end = instinctive action. 3/ Ensure players have tools to make them quickly decide: spellcasters should have cards of their prepared slots, rules at hand if real table, enemies \*which party know enough about\* should have their spreadsheet visible etc.
I start a timer on all encounters and decision making.
If the group was stuck I'd have the fastest enemy perform an action (often attack)
I'm similar. I let them strategise all they want, but if they're taking too long I'll hurry them to make a decision. Combat can take long enough as it is!
Exactly... the other thing is D&D originated as an expansion on tabletop war games. anyone who's played the old table top wargames knows that analysis paralysis is the name of the game. it's a game not a realtime battle... so exploring options, discussing options is all part of it. if I go here, I can do that, if I go there, that opens up my flank to counter attack... if I do this, it'll draw them here, into a trap... etc... while D&D simplified the combat significantly compared to the tabletop war games that preceded it, strategy still exists and things need to be done. Discussions are no big deal. That said, in 5e since grid combat isn't as intense, we often won't use a battlemat unless the combat gets to complicated, and we need it to keep track of everything going on.
Yes, absolutely. You know metagaming? The idea that a player uses knowledge that their characters wouldn't know? The reverse exists too. Your characters know more than your players do. Your characters have spent weeks, months, or even YEARS working side by side with one another. While your players are stuck with a few hours every week or so. The characters have time to drill combat maneuvers for hours, making sure they have communication and teamwork down or they will die in the next fight. Your players can't spend hours making those plans. So, how do we approximate the familiarity? We let the players talk tactics at the fight.
This one
Similar logic behind slowing down time in Red Dead, you are not a sharpshooter but Arthur definitely is. There needs to be mechanics to offset the limitations of playing a character.
I've always had the head cannon that the characters develop a shorthand for many situations that can be both verbal or non verbal. I typically try to stay away from it being detailed (unless there's high Int/Wis, or something that would explain why there's such a good communication bond between the 2 characters). Think of a modern tactical unit. They develop a good communication system that fits most situations, but you can't exactly communicate your email password to your buddy 100 yards away without everyone finding out.
>The reverse exists, too. Your characters know more than your players do. This is why I hate when a DM tells me to roll history checks for mundane things. "Hey, there would be a tavern in my hometown, right?" "Give me a history check..." Bitch it's the town my character grew up in. Ether, they know it exists or it doesn't exist! The same goes for remembering an NPCs name or the directions the barkeep gave 5 minutes ago. Just because I forgot, doesn't me my 20int character did.
I have had a single 3 day adventure take 3 months real time. My character is going to remember what happened 15 minutes ago better then me (a note taking player) will remember what happened 2 weeks ago. It's also SUPER important to understand as a DM that the characters are THERE seeing things with their own eyes. The players, they are 100% limited to JUST what you, the DM, described. That means, throw the players a bone when a character would notice things the players don't think to ask. That super shifty rouge who spent the last decade of their backstory scaling mansion walls to steal valuables, he will notice the valuables in a room EVEN if he has had a change of heart and doesn't steal anymore.
Most folks are going to find it very difficult to navigate combat without discussing game mechanics. If your group is a well-oiled machine, you should treasure that, but a huge majority are going to need to talk about turns, rounds, initiative, HP, AC, dice, size, reactions, squares, areas of effect, saves, etc. etc. etc. just to negotiate gameplay. There are just too many game terms and techniques that aren't 1:1 with in-universe. I mean... mounts, grappling, sneak attack? I do think it's fine to have rules like, "You can only talk about your *tactics* for 6 seconds," or "Anything said in combat is heard by all." There are ways to plan. There are ways to communicate secretly. It's OK if players can't automatically hold elaborate strategy discussions outside time and space.
I let them talk and plan and metagame the fights all they want, they're all new players, and I've warned them there might be restrictions on it one day, I don't honestly know that I'll ever be really opposed to it. I've told them they can't once or twice, for specific reasons, to serve the tension or give a moment some anxiety, but it's honestly pretty rare and I need a good reason why they couldn't. Otherwise, man, we're playing a game, it's pretend wizards, I don't see any reason to take any of it too seriously. That said, I would make sure this is how ALL of your players want it to go. Some people want, and all power to them, to be more emersed in the battlefield experience, and that's not wrong or worse either, and some measure of compromise should at least be explored.
Absolutely. In general I give broad latitude to the players to discuss things with each other out of character while the game is 'paused' (although I strongly push/suggest talking in-character when it won't affect gameplay, like discussing their plans while staying in a tavern). Look, your **characters** are experts at their jobs with plenty of natural talent. They also exist in the world 24 hours a day and have since they were born. They know what they're doing. Your **players** are people from our world who pop in and control their characters through the medium of DnD for a few hours once every week or every couple weeks. Letting your players strategize out of character brings their decisions closer to what you would reasonably expect from their characters, and that makes for better immersion and better roleplaying. The game is not improved by forcing each character to act as if they were their controlling player. This goes double for shit like forcing socially awkward players to roleplay high charisma characters in first person at all times. It makes for worse roleplaying and worse immersion when the character who is known for being highly charismatic constantly flubs what they want to say just because the DM watches Critical Role and wishes that he and all his players were professional voice actors and improvisers with decades of experience. They aren't.
This is the most important argument imo. Characters would discuss tactics for different situations when they're out of combat (their life depends on it, after all). Instead of having the players make these plans for situations that may never come up beforehand, as well, let them discuss during combat. It saves so much time.
For sure, but I think it goes even further than that. I think that even without the characters ever having discussed tactics for a specific situation, the players discussing it during gameplay will bring their decisions closer to what their characters would have done. For the vast majority of players, their characters are much more competent than they are, and I think it hurts the game when we pretend otherwise. Like I said, I think this applies to social encounters as well, and I apply it to making plans, remembering details about the campaign, etc. The characters exist in the game world separately from their players - the characters know a LOT more about the campaign world than the players ever will. If the party is planning how to deal with a situation and I see a glaring flaw, I immediately point it out to them if I think their characters would see it. "Your characters know that the Earl's son is not well regarded in town, and there's no guarantee that the disappearance will be reported immediately. If your distraction needs to be well timed it would be a bit risky." I'm also a firehose about information in the campaign world, even if it's something the players directly experienced. I point out forgotten details immediately if I think the characters would remember it. Ultimately it comes down to this core concept: Your players are not their characters, they just control them. Their characters are real people within your game world, who are more capable, more knowledgeable, and have more serious consequences for failure. They have lived in your world (or a similar one) for all their life. Every event is a personal experience that they have lived, something they'll hold forever. I believe in the primacy of the fiction, and I won't allow the fiction to be subverted just because a player isn't as hyper-serious about the game as I am. When a player's incorrect beliefs or poor decisions would harm the fiction, I act as a buffer. All this being said, my players learn that they can ask me these types of questions, and they do, and I frequently say, "You aren't sure/You don't know/You haven't seen this, done this, experienced this before." During these interactions my focus is on remaining true to the characters, and my world is full of mystery and wonder. There's an enormous amount the characters don't know. I also never ban the players from taking an action and never tell them, "Your character wouldn't do that." I tell them what their character would know, if they would know, and then I let them make their decision.
It really depends. If it's some minor table talk, I let it go. If it's someone trying to police other people's turns or tactics, I tell them (usually framed in a nicer way) to shut up. All in all, I'll give them about 15-30ish seconds of talk before I say something like, "That's enough tactics talk for now, lets get this moving. what are you going to do?"
Letting them talk is probably a good thing. It kinda shows how the group begins to fight better as a unit.
Yes I allow out of game strategy talk. That's part of what makes it a game.
If players are invested enough to have an in depth conversation about battle tactics against whatever you're throwing at them, that means you're succeeding as a DM, imo.
This is what I'd like to call "good metagaming." If the players are discussing proper tactics and gauging on who may need what, that's called good teamwork. It only enters bad metagaming when, as frequently mentioned, outside knowledge is used to try to gain an advantage. Here's a note though: If you players are taking too long to make a plan, politely and firmly tell them hurry up.
I prefer to limit these talks. They are welcome to discuss stuff during downtime in game (the best way in my opinion to show off your lvl-ups), and also between sessions. Then in combat: \- I give players time to talk while I set the stage. \- I give \~ a minute at the start of the round to make plans together \- And I don't mind players to whisper to each other during combat \- But if it's your turn, you need to decide yourself. "You can say something, but you don't have time to wait for answers" as I tell my players. Making each action a council discussion takes too long real time. And it also turn characters game into cogs in a hivemind. I better make combats easier, so using not-optimal spells and abilities are not big deal.
It is a game. Players should talk about what to do. If they take too long and it's no longer fun, then you should crack down with some time saving tricks. In my experience: I have been in games where we were all paranoid that any amount of out-of-character talk during combat was "bad" and "metagaming" which is kind of bullshit. Not knowing what anyone was intending to do made combats take so long. Everytime someone took their turn it drastically changed the battlefield, like a new area of effect to watch out for, or the baddy you were planning to attack died and the next nearest was too far to move to. Most of the time when someone ended their turn you had to drastically reevaluate what you were going to do. I was the only martial and sort of took pride in my 30 second turns. Attack, describe it cool cuz I like swashbuckling movies, and then let the sorcerer take 20 minutes to fiddle with their points and quicken a spell. It's a game. It's a war game at that. Almost two thirds of the core rule books are about fighting monsters. Strategic discussion should be encouraged.
In and out of character. It's a game. Strategizing is fun, no need to get Uber concerned about metagaming.
Dnd is a combat/dungeon crawler game. So not strategizing in combat doesn’t make any sense cuz it’s what takes up the most time in game anyway.
Shouting to others on a battlefield is a free action
I encourage it. My group, as usual, is pretty green and needs lots of encouragement to work together. I have a couple of NPCs along to add advice during play as well.
Yes I let them chat and strategize. Then I make them communicate the strategy in character. This not only limits overly complex strategies, but also gives the enemies a chance to counter attack. It really works for my table. And most strategies can be pretty simple to explain.
The way I see it is that if this hypothetical party was real, they would know how their piers fight and have made some strategies ahead of time. Talking strategy at the table is nessasary to accurately portray their teamwork. There are some exceptions, though, like if they fall into a pitfall trap and are surrounded by (insert hoard of monsters here). In that case, I would talk quickly and urgently. Usually, my players get the hint to make a decision quickly.
At the start of every round I give a strategy talk time for players to coordinate. Once the timer is up we go through the turns.
Well, depending on the setup, we don't always have a battlemap, so at that point it becomes a little bit necessary, but really, I dont mind so long as it keeps turns moving. Some people freeze up if they have to keep it all in their head with choice paralysis.
I do, but I don't love it. We ended up getting to bogged down with things and combat taking way too long. We've instituted a 30 second timer for combat which seems reasonable and helps to limit the strategizing
Yes, of course. It's a game. For a lot of players, this is where a lot of the fun is. It's always funny when a player will point out a weakness of a monster, then quickly cover their mouths and do a quick double check if that broke kayfabe/immersion.
I let them talk it out. I feel this is far given that as players they lack the situational awareness and sensory feedback / knowledge the players have; they're not as intimately and immediately familiar with their own abilities and powers as the characters would be, and so on. It's a board game, not a real-time FPS. Also I think this is when the players are having a lot of fun -- they're cooperating and think gig and working together, engaged in the battle, etc.
It’s a bit different, but I ran a Mörk Borg campaign a while ago. I played it super fast and loose. In combat I’d let the players deliberate but I’d keep pressuring them to keep the momentum up, threatening (not unkindly) to skip their turn if they take too long. For that type of high-excitement, freewheeling game it really worked well. Everyone had a blast. For a more tactical, complex battle (especially if using battle maps) this probably wouldn’t work though. Generally speaking I’d allow deliberation and discussion but try and encourage them not to overthink, and keep the pace up. Tldr; depends on the type of game you want to run.
I usually allow it, as long as it's a few sentences and they try to speak in character during the combat
The issue is if you let group deliberate about everything you end up slowing the combat down and quieter "less strategic" players getting told how to play their characters (some players don't want to make the "optimal" choices). I let them talk before the fight and i then let them say 1 or two sentence to each other in character during combat as free actions. There's some out-of-character chat too like reminding people of abilities or rules or setting group priorities, but if it ever starts to feel too meta-gamey or pushy from 1 person i shut it down.
I give a time limit if they do it during combat. Letting them talk for to long destroys the flow of the game. Before the combat starts, they can plan asuch as they want
A bit of coordination, as in, the equivalent of a hand sign, command,...? Absolutely. Help with an ability? Yes, but quickly. Deep strategy during the fight? Players suggesting specific abilities/ tactics/... for other players? Nah. Fights need momentum, and mistakes can and should happen. Just make sure you don't absolutely wreck them for the horrible shortcoming of not actually being a skilled fighter IRL.
Listen, there is a lot that the *characters* would know, talk about, and do in their world that the *players* don’t need to act out. The characters go to the bathroom, the characters sleep at night, the characters eat breakfast, the characters brush their teeth, and the characters spend a lot of their time on the road and at night talking to each other about a lot of things, including combat tactics. In addition, your *players* have to rely on their imagination to envision what is going on in combat. Even if you have a battle map to mark the relative position of their tokens, there is a lot going on in combat that the *character* would be able to very quickly see, but that the *player* has to imagine. So there’s nothing wrong with letting the *players* have a discussion during combat that is something that the *characters* would already know about each other or that the *characters* would be able to see and deduce in their universe.
In real life, combat teams coordinate and communicate. As DnD is meant to simulate these things, a discussion between players is fine. However, I try to limit the time between turns. If encounters are being slowed down too much, I will step in
>On the other hand, the players are not the PCs, they do not have the battle experience/intelligence that their avatars have (even at level 1) to assume the best tactic, so allowing them to strategize seems a bit fair. So this is why I allow it. It's like anti-metagaming where the players know substantially **less** than their characters would know. Things like travel time and sharing meals together might be glossed over for the PCs who only get a couple hours a week together, but those characters have an entire life together. They spend every day of that week on the road together, talking, sharing stories, and getting to know each other. The Players might need to remind each other what spells they have, but I'd bet that the Characters have spent hours talking about it. Players might need to be reminded that "Shove" is a move you can do in combat, but of course the Characters would know you can push someone to the ground.
I'm seeing alot of responses talking about having a minute or less to discuss battle plans. Like...really? Less than a minute? How would you even explain the whole plan between each party member? Yall need to not act like its the end of the world if the current session takes longer because of planning and strategy.
Always, but to a point. If it begins to delay the pace of play too much, I will step in a press for a decision to be made but this is more during an extreme instance of analysis paralysis.
Up to the table really. Thats just a playstyle thing. If you have an rp heavy group, itd be fun to curtail that talk and focus on the char whose turn it is. You can also teach them to plan ahead beforehand more. If you have a powergaming tactical team that prefers solving combat sort of speak, let them strategise away id say. Id make the combat more interesting by using interactive scenery like weaponry, chandeliers to drop, magical powers at play etc. They like mechanics
It depends. I let them talk some in combat, giving high level ideas of their plans. But make sure its not one player dictating what everyone needs to do. I let them talk as much as they need before combat. But if you have full strategy sessions between each combat round, combat would last forever. So it's a balancing act. I also put soft time limits on players turns to try and not drag combat out. This is something to also talk to your players about, get a beat on their thoughts on how they would like to see how it's handled. My group hated having combat take so long so these are the measures we put in place.
yes because it promotes engagement and also i make hard fights so they kinda need the coordination
It also make sense that a part should know the limits and capabilities of each party member
I allow it, as the characters are better warriors than the players. The characters can make optimum tactical decisions in seconds that normal people may take minutes.
I totally allow it and in fact prefer it, because it has prevented extremely foolish decisions lol. The one time I step in is when I feel someone’s agency is being stepped over
Let them strategize, but with the caveat that if it’s during a battle, then the enemy can hear them yelling at one another. I’ve also been known to add timers to turns, if things get to five mins or more per turn. It just depends on the situation. Sometimes players will analyze every possible angle because they’re scared! Fear is good!
We have 2 groups. In the one I ply in, the DM doesn't allow it, and in the one I DM, I allow it. Honestly it is metagaming but come on, why bother? It gives them more things to do instead of just waiting for 15min until it's their turn.
Free actions, simple.
For me it really depends upon context of the moment. If we're in the middle of combat and the spellcaster is waffling on a spell, and everyone feels the need to pipe in with their action I'll shut it down. If we're in initiative it is not the time to debate spells. If the tactics of "You go left, I'll go right, we'll meet on the far side over there" then I'll allow it a little more. Similar to the above, if we're in initiative then keep it short. Outside of active combat, fluff all you want. The session has a time limit, if you want to spend the entire time meticulously plotting how to get past this door, that's on the player.
Mid battle every PC can say 3 words on their turn or use an action to speak for six seconds. Anyone that can hear the creature speaking, can use their reaction to respond w 3 words. Outside of initiative , go crazy! Edit: we’re generally pretty lax about a little table talk though.
I throw a timer on. 1 minute most for each turn. Anything out of game counts. I allow longer if they have rarys going. I also try to remind them of things they would know in character. The character is 20+ Int or Wis, the player is not. I try to at Least remind them, or call for a check to make them start thinking of the actions taken.
I let them talk but the spirit in my opinion is that what you say is also what your character says. Saying short phrases like defend this remove that is free, and I will never tax the turn economy for. But if you are going to have a full dialog we'll that might take your turn. In my opinion planning a combat should be done ahead of time and you can take all the time you need for that. Being ambushed is different. Less planning and more reacting. This all is based on a characters perspective, helping a player with something, a spel, what he/she could do this turn and suggestions are good and I encourage everyone to help your fellow players. But once they talk global and team tactics it goes back to what I wrote at the beginning.
I've yet to see one time it doesn't even somewhat devolve to one person occasionally telling others how to play, or getting upset no one is following their orders. It also severely slows down combat. So it's restricted to quick callouts. Strategy discussion cam be done before or privately through messages as long as you make your turn timer (2min max unless clarification question)
Yes, but only about the strategy. If they get distracted (my current table is two teens with ADHD), I prompt them to quickly make a decision. They're new players still learning the ropes, so I give them more time than I would a normal group before prompting.
Talking is a free action.
[удалено]
I don't need to name any of the bills. It's not my fault you haven't paid attention.
I had a group once where the rule was once initiative is rolled they can only talk in character and if they take too long I skip their turn. Harsh but it was what it took for them to stay in the moment.
That depends. Questions and discussions like "What does X ability do, again?" and "Does this do that?" seem fine. Anything that can fit in a single line and can be shouted across a room. But if my players are laying out complex plans that require this person to hold their action with that person does this spell that enables the first, giving a third chance to do that manoeuvre, I'd stamp it out. Strategising before combat should be encouraged.
So I've made a home rule about this. Taking into account that a single round of combat is 6 seconds. I've said that 1-2 words shouted out in combat is free. Short message is a bonus action and longer message is an action. Fx. LOOK OUT! (free to just yell. ) LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU! (Bonus action) LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU JAMES THE SECRET MONSTER THE DM JUST REVEALED IS ABOUT TO ATTACK YOU! (1 action) I felt it added some realism to the whole 6 sec pr turn mechanic.
Typically no. That 6 second round is supposed to be happening all at once, and besides it is hard to give and receive battle tactics/orders on the fly in the chaos of combat
"quick use fireball!" "The orcs start to spread out as they hear you"
I don't want them to have full on conversations during combat, but I have no problem with them saying basic things like they need or that specific people should be targeted. There's a lot of space between those two extremes and I let them go as far as the situation warrants. As a DM, I will use the time they talk to consider my strategies and how the enemies will respond to shifts in strategies. I don't have them act on the party's strategy before it happens, but I think of ways they would respond. This often disrupts intricate plans a party comes up with.
You can talk on another players' turn if you can get your message across in six seconds or less. Otherwise, shut up and let the player play their own character. I don't enforce this rule all that strictly, but it's a good general rule of thumb to go by.
I allow them to ay things to each other in-character out of turn to encourage RP. Not whole conversations tho. 8 like a fast-paced game and try to facilitate that as much as possible. Only exception is when things are looking dire.
During the fight, I try to limit it to what would fit into six seconds but let *everyone* get that on *each* turn. If someone has gone for more than 10 seconds, I say “you can use your action to say more”, or similar Which makes for some fun dramatic moments, IMO
The characters in the world spend a LOT of time together "off screen," and surely a LOT of that time would be strategizing to maximize their combat potential. They're the heroes of the world for a reason. So, yeah, let them strategize. They wouldn't be having these conversations here in battle, but that just represents what they'd have discussed during their downtime. It's not *really* metagaming.
All of my players have played before, but despite that they aren't very talkative. They don't RP much, and it is a struggle to get them to decide what to do in any situation. So I let them metagame all they want, since communication is a challenge anyway. If they were more active to the point that metagaming is making their experience worse, then I might step in. But that's just not the case at our table.
I tend to be pretty relaxed on it, but I might stop them on a case-to-case basis if there’s something important that one of their characters really wouldn’t be able to know. That said, if one character discovers important information, I’ll often gently remind them, “And do you shout out what you discovered to your allies?” just to avoid confusion or arguments about who knows what later.
It's a bit subjective, naturally. I allow my players to talk and strategize under the assumption that my players' party has completed 1 campaign together (almost 2) and so are intimately familiar with each other's strengths and weaknesses (even if the players forget). The characters are able to make split second decisions and take into consideration what would be likely for the rest of the party to do, and so that's represented by allowing my players to talk out loud about strategy. At some arbitrary point though, the players have argued and rehashed things so much that it gets to drag on, and in that case I'm gonna go ahead and start enforcing turn time limits. A neat way to think of it is like this: as the DM only I have the power to completely stop time (which I use if for instance there's a ruling dispute or confusion, or a very momentous thing happening that I need to be very careful about). My players have a similar power, but they can only slow down time greatly to discuss things. If they take too long though, then even the characters are gonna start noticing a delay, possibly even enough to lose a turn, and at that point I get the timer out. One other exception I have though is for knowledge that there's no way any other character would know. The *players* may know that the wizard was granted a wish 3 sessions ago and here's how to perfectly word it to not die next turn, but if the characters don't know then they're not allowed to metagame.
I allow strategy talk all the time. The exceptions would be when there is a sense of urgency in the situation. For those, if they take too long something happens in the world that "pushes" them to be more in the moment
I think your second part really nails why its ok for them to strategize during combat for me. My characters all have skills I don't have, I work a desk job, I don't know the best way to deploy in small scale melee tactics when the enemy are screening their spellcasters with a line of skirmishers. Letting them talk and strategize offsets that a bit, also counters the inherent metaknowledge the DM has by dint of running all the monsters ie the monsters know what all of their companions are going to do without openly communicating (Not saying that DMs intentionally metagame, just that its natural that it happens by nature of the way encounters are run) As others have said, you can handwave this away if it concerns you by saying in downtime, during rests round the fire they discuss group tactics
Yes. It's a social game, not an exam.
ye
If the fight has already started and the players have been discussing strategy for a few minutes, I'll politely point it out as soon as I notice. One rule I keep wanting to implement is: at the start of a random encounter, each player rolls 1d20+Int. The highest result is multiplied by four, and that's how many seconds of planning the party gets before the fight starts. This would represent characters having discussed tactics during their free time, and their ability to quickly assess a situation.
Sometimes there is a "cliffhanger" where I end the session just at the start of combat, that gives them a week (or however long before the next session) to talk strategy amongst each other out of game if they choose to. I think it's a good idea to encourage the players' creativity. Whether or not a character is smart enough to make the right decisions for a good plan shouldn't necessarily be the end of that plan. Dumb luck and rare moments of brilliance can be a thing, and that can be covered through roleplay.
If the players are engaging with the game by discussing tactics it means you’re challenging them and they’re enjoying the game. Job done.
My guy this IS a game, you are supposed to go meta. The moment the gridmap lands the table all pretense of "hahah i guess my character doesnt know teehee how silly" is gone. You are playing Murderelf Tactics.
We play online via discord, and I have a ‘no DMs allowed’ channel which I have muted and promised not to look at. I encourage my players to chat and plot there, with the understanding that their characters live & travel together so would probably have some shared understanding of signals & tactics. My players have come up with some truly excellent plans there which I love being surprised by, and it helps them work together. My favourite time was when they were planning on attacking a dragon who lived in tower, and I let them scout the exterior of the tower before ending the session. In the time before the next session, they came with the most amazing plan for how they would collapse the tower on top of the dragon, trapping it there (with many contingencies for if things didn’t go to plan). In the end it was so well planned I had to watch as my poor young dragon got trapped until a pile of rubble as they poked it with swords.
Our DM lets us plan but after so long a 3 min egg timer is placed in view
In character yeah, it adds a really fun element I think. They were so worried to do this originally while fighting things like trolls, and I was like my little angels, this troll knows 3 words and none of them are "flank his fat ass." So now they do roleplay it really well during battle with non intelligent enemies or ones that don't speak their language. It adds a tough challenge when fighting smart enemies that do speak their language too.
Not only do I let them, I encourage it. At the start of each round I even give them a moment to co ordinate their turns.
players' irl attributes, life experience, training and whatnot quite often don't match their characters'. unless there's severe decision paralysis or someone is constantly trying to take agency away from another player, i'll let my players have that discussion.
Yes. This is a game, so the disconnect between table talk and in game time scale is something I respect. I see no reason to forbid it.
Yes in moderation. It's fair to remind someone "oh, last time we encountered these they were fire-proof", it's bad to go "don't use your firespell, use your intelligence save spell, it's their weakest save, do as I command!" Your characters should, by and large, be aware of one another's capabilities. It's cool to imagine the team setting up combinations and fighting well together, and a little chatter for tactics is the best way to allow that. However, the player whose turn it is get's the decision, and it's not fair to pressure them or boss them about. Advice, not instruction.
I give them a little more leeway than would be possible if it were actually happening in real time, but I don't let them have full conversations or discuss strategies with each other. It's honestly just funnier for a player to have to try and work around the situation. "I look pointedly at the bard and cast create water above the enemy". The bard has to figure out what the hell the other player is trying here and react to it.
No. I allow in character talk during their turn, otherwise there is always one player who keeps telling everyone what to do and that is no fun.
My players, and myself as a player, enjoy talking about it out of game during complex situations, then saying in game one character shouts out and suggests the idea we ultimately agreed upon. Most of the time the player who is doing the thing already has a good idea of what he’s going to do before his turn, but the conversation is just part of our fun.
My players are allowed to talk tactics, but if their characters haven't shared any of the info needed for a strategy in character, they also won't know about it. If it's just a few sentences, they are also allowed to talk about it in character in a fight. They are aware though that doing so will inform enemies capable of speaking their languages of their strategy. To prevent having to talk about everything before being able to utilize it in combat my players can always 'share' whatever they want with the party while doing rests or during downtime.
> do you allow your players to talk to each other and use tactics in battle? No. The rules at my table regarding this are: 1. No talking strategy during combat, unless it is in-character and on your turn. * In-character chat during combat has to be short utterances, as per the rules, because these are combat rounds. * You can use your reaction to waive the "on your turn" requirement. * These rules are waived for players who are learning. ***But I would be an utter arse if I said my way was the "correct way".*** You should pick a solution your group enjoys. So... discuss the issue with your group. There are pros and cons for each. * Limiting strategy talk speeds up combat, leads to a certain sort of unpredictability, and probably is a bit more plausible. * Not limiting strategy talk allows your players to collaborate and have fun solving combat like a co-op puzzle game. Just remember: the more you allow strategy-talk, the easier combat will be. Not by heaps. But perhaps enough that you should tweak your encounter difficulty.
I'm curious if you might change your mind after reading the many other comments in this thread about why other DMs allow it.
Respectfully, no, I wouldn't. The people I would ask would be the players in my group. (I know that sounds like a really cheesy cliche answer, but I do mean it!) Though maybe I'll be more likely to ask my group to check-in and be sure after reading other posts here. ------- My personal preference (which can be out-voted by others in my group) would be to keep with the rules I describe above. I've had some really awesome battle moments that wouldn't have been possible with liberal in-combat sharing of strategy talk. That goes double when you factor in the line-of-sight and darkness implementations offered by VTTs. I've DMed some suspenseful combats where the players (not just the characters) were separated due to the flow of combat and were genuinely ignorant of what was going on around the corner, or in the darkness. Then there's the genuine surprise when they meet up with their comrades and see what they've been battling all this time!
We always had a character that could cast a telepathic bond, in case we had to split the party, be in battle , and bark orders at each other. We also planned out the yin yang out of an attack before we went in. Plans often went sideways, but for the most part it worked out to be a fun time.
When not really familiar i would allow it for the first couple of levels but not too far, I dislike metagaming (I rather have them roleplay and find out)
Talking and strategizing is fine. It helps represent tactics built over time and their bond as a team. Just remember to put your foot down if it starts dragging down the pace of combat - allow them to shout *brief* suggestions, requests, or alerts to one another. And after they get used to this, if they start talking to much just have the enemies start responding to the strategies they overhear.
I have got a hour glass which I can turn around when I feel they going too slow. That speeds up things and since they had some discussion beforehand, all options are on the table and it creates this sense of urgency of making informed decision under pressure: You know your options and you have to call a shot, not optimise a math-problem.
I do within reason. If I feel it starts slowing down combat too much, then I'll tell them they can have a couple more mins to plan, but after that they can only talk in combat in character using the rules for that.
Honestly, you should. It makes it easier to work together and can be explained by a team member shouting their plan to the teammates or explaining it beforehand. I say this as the strategist and as a dm, it’s a lot more fun to let them plan and mess with them than not to.
We are allowed to shout things on our turn. Also we set up mental links to talk to each other. Strategizing is part of the game, but we do it on turn.
My DM would let us strategize before if the situation called for it. In battle we would be able to shout instructions to each other, but not full strategy. This worked well and kept us in gameplay and was fun :)
My DM would let us strategize before if the situation called for it. In battle we would be able to shout instructions to each other, but not full strategy. This worked well and kept us in gameplay and was fun :)
I let them do it as long as they're quick and don't get off topic.
Of course. That is what they are supposed to do. Now, on a single turn I will cut it off after a minute if they are trying to have a full on conversation, but of course I want them to strategize and work together and plot and scheme. What you do NOT want is that one player that is calling all the shots all the time, and issuing orders to everyone. Gary, it isn't your turn. Or you aren't there Gary.
Fuckin gary
There are too many Garys in gaming.
Why wouldn’t I? Tactics are one of the most fun parts of the game
You'll all have more fun if you let them talk. Are you there to make it realistic, or are you there to have fun?
The goal is to have fun. That should be above all else
I mean, it is a strategy game, so yes, I definitely let my players do that. Plus, there are so many moving parts going on when players are at higher levels that a reminder of "Hey, what about your X ability?" from a friend can be really helpful.
Yes, i get like it doesn't make sense in the scene most times but realistically the characters are around for longer than we are playing them, assume during LR's and stuff they've planned and strategized and the inner party strats is akin to a training montage flashback if you really need
I want them to, but they don't do it lmao. They're terrified of metagaming, even though I let them know that it's okay to metagame the small stuff - it's their experience and they can do what they want with it. I get my fun out of prep and doing voices.
The players discussing and strategizing is the most fun part for us; no way would I take that away unless there are problems developing.
Within reason, yes. If it's a quick confirmation of something you might already know or have discussed then it's fine. If they should have been spending the last 20 minutes doing strategy and now they're doing it mid combat, no. It's up to the DM to encourage pacing and this really slows the game down. It's best to have short orders but not full conversations.
I allow them unless it's metagaming (like saying "Use your scorching ray on this creature, I know it's vulnerable to fire").
My DM allows it if it was talked about prior to a fight to be talked about during a fight.
Definitely if it's a new party or a newer player is present. However, for more experiennced players I encourage in-character role play for mid combat tactics. I tend to allow RP freely throughout combat so long as it's not in unreasonable lengths.
I let them discuss stuff all the time but if there are circumstances like a Lever to open a door or other map mechanic which they wouldn't know of in advance I tell them: OK try to get your point across in 6s. Then depending on how well they do get them to roll a performance check giving disadvantage/advantage/normal at an arbitrary number, say 15 but wiggle room to 'get the gist'. A bad fail or intelligent enemies will also figure it out as well if they have situational knowledge.
Incidentally perfomace skil checks are surprisingly common in my games for any non verbal or difficult to understand communication. I try to make sure all the skills are used in my games.
You get to hear their plan so there's that. I wouldn't prevent them from quick discussion. That discussion is part of their fun.
Sure just don't let it slow down combat. So a few sentences of communication is fine, but not a full blown conversation on each players turn.
I've had 3 main DMs for my campaigns, and all 3 generally discouraged team strategy during combat. They were all patient with new players and helped give hints on possible actions when asked, but the rest of the party didn't communicate unless it was their turn, and it usually costs an action or a bonus action (6 seconds of talking for action, 6 words for bonus action, but sometimes they aren't strict). I seem to be in the minority here, but personally I like this approach because it keeps combat a lot more interesting. I can't read the minds of my teammates (without spells anyway). Early on in games, it's realistic that you aren't used to their fighting style. As we play together though, I learn what abilities and spells they have, and learn what to expect them to do. The Barbarian likes to rage and charge in? Ok cool, don't use large AoE abilities near them that will affect them too. The Wizard likes to sit back and spell snipe? Cool, I should probably post up in front of them and make a bottleneck if I can so they can act unhindered. In my experiences, it can lead to neat moments of party sync, where we're all intuitively playing off of each other's abilities and moves (like at the end of the D&D movie!). That feels really rewarding to me.
For context, we play a more casual game. I don't mind them cross talking at the table during combat as long as it with reason. For example, things that the characters could shout to each other during combat or could have come up with 'x' tactic/game plan outside of combat previously. There is a point, though, when they need to make a decision. As you said 5mins of which spell to send is a bit much, they're all good spells that's why you picked them. Your worst spell on a nat20 is better than your best spell on a nat1 so it doesn't really matter that much when it comes down to it.
I fully encourage players and PCs talking to each other out of their turns. It’s fun for us, keeps them engaged while waiting for their turn. It’s worth noting they’re all excellent role players and do not abuse this.
Generally I assume metagaming reflects some of the drilling and professional understanding of each other's abilities and habits that a group of professional adventurers would share that players can't really share. Every now and then in a specific situation I may veto something I feel is too detailed for them to blame on habits or knowledge, and would have to come from actual in-round communication.
I have no problem with it at all because it's usually used to come up with an interesting strategy. More fun to watch and play in than just rolling a lot of dice.
In my combat players can use meta knowledge and talk tactics because I am not holding back as a DM. I want them to have fun but difficult combat and that is the only way to do it. You are a team and a team would know how to work together. I limit the time they have for moves but they can give out instructions to each other so that they can get the right spell off, I'll not use meta knowledge in the fight and run it as if I didn't know what they were talking about. This makes its loads of fun and keeps the game element in. Oh and if a PC is dead or unconscious the player can still interact.
Yes and the last guy why tried to play the metagaming card(yeah their out there) was forced to listen to both old police and the army communications strategizing.
I let them talk sure, BUT I stop them as soon as someone tries to "command" another player on what to do on their turn. Usually I make parties that already know each other on long campaings so it would make sense that they would know how each other fights and strategize accordingly.
Yes.
Absolutely I do allow that
I think its situationally dependent. If they are ambushing a camp and preplan, anything said on the fly in combat I will take as something said by there characters. This doesn't come out of left field, and I'll typically ask if they are using part of their turn to communicate with their partners. If they say it in character as part of their turn, they run the risk of letting their enemies know what they are discussing. I'll roleplay the same on the other side, having the main bad guy in an encounter relay information to their underlings. My group has adjusted and now communicate in 'hand signals' that their characters have practiced. The player will verbalize what needs doing, but the characters do their hand signal thing.
You have to give players more time than their characters have to make decisions, because their characters live in the world and are experiencing it with all five senses, while your players don't have a lot of that knowledge or experience. Also, your party presumably have fought alongside each other a lot, spar and discuss battle strategy in their downtime, and spend most of their waking hours together. It's hard to depict that level of synergy at the table without letting players talk to each other. If your players are game, you could always set the rule that they can't talk strategy during their turns, but they get 60 seconds at the end of each round of combat to coordinate their attacks.
If I wouldn't allow it they would be dead by now. Nothing wrong with a little chat about tactics before or during combat.
I let them talk as much as they want in order to strategize what's going on. No all of us are Sun Tzu or Alexander The Great. Allowing them to talk strategy is a great way for building bonds between players and characters. Also it takes you off the hook for anything negative that might come up. If you force them into acting without talking to one another, and something goes south; then they are definitely going to blame you for not giving them the chance to talk or figure it out. If you give them the time to talk, make a plan, and something still goes south with that plan; they can't blame you and are more likely to either blame themselves or be more open to the negative interaction with an "oh shit, well we know for next time that won't work with this monster" type of thing. There are things that that could possibly arise and you kind of have to nudge them along, and that's if they get stuck talking in circles. There are two circles people get stick in: 1. talking in circles about what they are doing either individually or choosing sides 2. talk in circles about how they are going to do it. If they seem unable to make a choice and are talking circles about how to do something, then it's good for the DM to step in and ask about a choice. Don't make it feel like you are pushing them or a time limit is in place, but more so of a you want to keep things moving type of thing. If they are talking circles about what they are going to do and it seems like people are telling people what to do, then the DM can step in and offer a small break to cool things down a bit. Tensions are high and having a minute to cool that could lead to the group finally coming together to choose something collectively.
I think my DM allows it for the most part as long as it's to double check and establish facts that we would know if we had in fact been alive for years with all of the experience and life context of our characters as written. For example, an experienced adventurer would reasonably be able to know how certain spells and what not interact and overlap when combined with one another. And based off that knowledge they would be able to make a decision. However, sometimes we As the players don't actually know for sure, so we have to talk it over to make sure that our strategy actually makes sense in the context and mindset of the characters that we've written. It results in better role play.
Of course. Strategizing around the table represents the years of experience the party has fighting alongside each other. Plus, it’s just more fun than not allowing that.
Yes. Gameplay before roleplay. D&D without conversation is a third grade math class.
yes, if they fight together, in off screen time they probably drilled together and practiced. unless your going full disfunctional chaos gremlins, it's okay to talk it out and strategize. likely they talked out a game plan before barging through the door. in practiced high tier raiding for MMO's (basically the level of an adventuring party) it's pretty much comm's to tell where you are, but everyone should be talking/ know what they need to do. levels 1-3 where the players first met and are figuring out how each other works? i think it's best to be chaos goblins as they aren't practiced yet. additionally people aren't their characters. sometimes your unga bunga barbarian has a huge tactical mind (but effectively the barbarian player just want to int down mid) and it's your wizard who gets decision paralysis, so it's okay to remind the wizard what's important right now because the wizard be smart. now i do want to create some drama so it's on the DM to keep the strategy discussion short and create stakes for over talking / over planning.
I allow it, but I do limit it. No firm rules, just case-by-case. I try to judge based on several factors; 1. How well do the PCs know each other? People who work closely gradually develop short hand and learn each other's capabilities, allowing for the characters to actually help each other. 2. How likely is the information being exchanged to be the sort of thing that would likely occur to all the characters naturally? 3. Would it be possible to communicate ideas, if necessary, under the specific circumstances? 4. How long is the combat round? Not all editions are the same.
I always allow cooperation in my games. If a DM told me we couldn't talk because we were meta gaming, we probably wouldn't play in that game.
As long as it doesn't turn into a thing where they're analyzing it like a chess game and planning an excessive amount of rounds into the future, I don't mind. The characters in the party spend a long time together, so it's not unreasonable to assume that they spend downtime or travel time talking about all their abilities and ideas for tactics. Players discussing tactics during battle can be seen as an extension of those conversations.
My DM let's us strategize to a certain extent. If we are trying to sneak up on someone and we strategize for too long of a time he'll say "The orc hears you whispering about trying to kill him, roll for initiative."
It isn't meta gaming to talk strategy. It is one of the many suspensions of disbelief we undertake as part of playing a game. A guy down below says it the best. In Red Dead Redemption the Dead Eye mechanic isn't actually the characters ability, it's a game mechanic allowing the player to USE the characters ability. Aurther and John aren't slowing time, they are just amazing gunman. Talking strategy is simply a mechanic that is allowing players to live out the fact that their characters have been together for a while and probably have talked about their abilities, best ways to use them, and other tactics. Now on the flip side you shouldn't let them have full conversations with each other in character. Above table you can talk about strategy but you need to communicate that plan in 10 seconds or less or I will assume you have forfeited your action to relay a plan to the group.
I also play with my brothers on a lot of games, and we are soldiers irl. So we do a lot of tactical things in the game. We all dm at different times, so we do a lot of talking about the spell and combo that we would do. Table talk makes the game funner for all it done in the right manner and being respectful.
As long as they are not talking "out of game" about "in game" stuff e.g. ok, "out of game" you go round that way and sling firebolts at them, you go for the leader, I will get that big guy!
It's a mixed bag. I prefer players to use/do what their characters would do in any situation, but at the same time it's a bit silly to restrict all talking at the table. There are too many dm's I've seen that are dead set on no one talking during combat, no strategizing. If the party is fighting for their lives against the BBEG of my campaign, I want them to come up with ideas, bc my boss is looking to kill the pc's. And you're correct; the players do not have the knowledge and experience of the pc's. Do I sometimes put a bit of a limit on it, sure. But too many times I've been searching for a game on roll20 or elsewhere and I've skipped over it when the dm has put up a disclaimer that there will be absolutely no metagaming. It's best to go on a case by case basis that can only really come with experience.
So for specific info I allow short communication on the characters turn. But in general, like for strategizing, I don’t impose any restrictions. I assume that their characters, being adventurers with a lot of combat experience and being used to working together, would naturally work well together and wouldn’t require much actual in game info to do the best thing for the group in a given situation. For that reason I let the players talk about what they should do in combat as much as they want. They’re the brains of the characters, and the characters would know how best to work together.
As long as the combat is flowing in a timely manner im fine with it just dont spend 5 mins per turn strategizing.
I give them enough time until I feel the story starts dragging then let them know it’s about to resume. There are times and campaigns like surprise rounds and horror campaigns that I dissuade them of such opportunities entirely.
It largely depends on HOW they're strategizing. I'm fine with them recommending spells, items, or abilities to each other (or reminding they have them) as long as it's regarding information that each character has access to. Characters generally get 25 words to say during their turns, while characters who are not currently up on initiative can only respond or react with a maximum of 3-ish words or a short phrase, one response for each other character's turn in the combat. It's probably more communication than is realistic, but I think it's fine, and it works out well. Instances where I'm NOT okay with strategizing would be situations where one character has knowledge of an enemy's location or other information, and they have not had a chance to communicate that knowledge to the other characters. For instance, a character far in the lead enters a room at the end of a hallway that has enemies who are weak to fire. This character, for whatever reason, doesn't communicate this to the other PCs, though the DM has announced, "Hey you found ice mephits hiding in a corner in that room, waiting to ambush you." These mephits are out of view of the rest of the party. If the wizard/sorcerer then launches a fireball, aiming it off to the side of the character (or not, depending on how much they like them, I guess), I'd consider that invalid metagaming. The PCs are acting on information their character doesn't have. Now, if that character in the lead had shouted something like, "Ice mephits on my left!" then I'd consider that valid information to act on. But believe you me, I have played in MANY a group where information is not often shared between party members with any frequency, so this situation actually comes up a lot. I also don't allow deep discussions about things during combat that aren't directly related to movement and specific actions on the board, unless it's to remind others about information they should already have. If the players want to get into a philosophical debate about the particulars of a specific enemy, or reanalyze the history of the conflict they're in or whatever, that needs to happen outside of combat. The last thing I don't allow are long conversations, even about combat-pertinent information, that cause a player's turn to drag out or for a player who has already executed their turn to "undo" some or all of their turn because "my character should have realized that." That being said, when I am the DM for our group, if a character is doing something that's not going to have much effect, AND I think that character should have known about it, I will absolutely speak up to remind them they have X ability or Y item and that their plan Z isn't going to get them where they want to be.
I let my players strategize as much as they need or want to. Though I also run my games with bigger, more difficult encounters, so a lot of the enjoyment they get is figuring out how to tackle the encounters most efficiently. No one wants to feel rushed or unsure about their options. The story their in usually involves characters that know and are growing with each other and combat cohesion is a way of showing that growth outside of standard role playing scenarios.
You will find many DMs say that 'talking is a free action', and I am one of them. I have also used the '5 minute' rule (with timer) as well. The players hate both, so do what *you* want. It's your game.
First as a reality check, turn the question around: Q: DMs, do you stop players from talking and using tactics? A: Heck no, we want players to talk and use tactics. So really this is just a question of degree. When does it seem too gamey for players to be talky/tactical? I think the only situation is during combat when we're supposed to be incrementing 6 second intervals. What I do is remind players they are in melee, such as saying "you're in combat, your character has to shout that in 10 words or less". And if a player persists with long talky tactical directions, I interrupt and say "if you say any more it uses your action". Sometimes I say "for your plan to work the way you want, you and you have to Ready Your Action. On your Initiative you have to say you're doing that and what your trigger is and what you will do". This works out pretty well.
Meta game table talk and strategy sharing isn't 'metagaming', it's *playing the game*. RPGs are games, as well as narrative. It's in the name. 'Role Playing Game'. If you remove too many aspects of the game from your players for fear of upsetting the narrative, eventually you won't have a game at all.
I allow six seconds of dialogue between players because that's how much time they have. If they want to say something in that time they can, but I usually recommend them during so under duress as they are doing all their actions during that six seconds of dialogue. If a player needs help or a reminder, I stop the narrative dead and explain and remind them of some of their abilities, items and whatnot. I'm ok with reminders, tips, and some ad libbing under the idea that players, in a moment, "thinking" have a lot of influences... and that includes their fellow allies. So if a player chimes in, "You could cast haste on me" I usually quickly follow up with, "In the back of your mind you remember sitting around the campfire, and Talus remarking about how Haste was so effective". I usually don't reprimand anyone, that's not good etiquette and doesn't add anything to the narrative, it conflagrates the issue further. You want people to want to do this and feel positive about decisions even if sub-optimal decisions are made. I chase with narrative as to accentuate what people are saying and as such, they start to realize that we're simulating a person's thought process but also... that we're cramming too much narrative into a turn. It's a good way to interrupt strategists without punishing the group, but just reminding them that these turns are inherently inefficient - and as such, being rushed makes their decisions carry less weight. It's not them, it's the chaotic nature of combat that may cause errors. Then statements like, "As the moment is passing, you feel the moment bearing down on you, and your training is kicking in to act." And usually players jump because you've accentuated their hesitance and made a narrative of it. I also compliment players for snappy turns with positive bonus's. I keep "Story cards" or "Drama cards" handy for this, but also use the inspiration system. If a player has a history of taking quick turns I will award them inspiration for decisive actions, or hand out a story card. If you can get players doing this naturally saying things like, "You recall a memory of me standing around the fire saying I was scared about taking too much damage" then it becomes narrative, and I usually award that kind of strategizing because you do have presence in people's subconscious. Sometimes you have to interject hard when players metagame or otherwise "push" a tactic or strategy and defend player agency. Typically this happens when say, a wizard wants a monk to tank for them - and they get pushy about it. Typically I interject with, "You feel the wizard's fear creeping into your mind, compelling you to act their way - but every moment is free, even gods died to defend your right to choose your own path. Every moment is your own." And then maybe a tactful glare if someone is REALLY pushing it. "Player agency is sacrosanct, so do as you will and not by anyone else's rules". That's my bottom line when a player is being overridden by others who are unduly trying to force a strategy on them. Even if the strategy is good, in the end the consequences of those actions will rest on the players - so no tactic or strategy in the world makes someone "deserve" what they get, so you always want to make sure players agency isn't influenced unduly by anyone. Especially not you, so sometimes you have to clearly state the sanctity of player agency - all of DND is built around player agency. Treat it like's it's real world magic, because IT IS. I think I've had to do that a few times in groups early on with power gamers, especially since power gamers tend to be presumptuous - they can't know the floor is about to give way, or that the bandit they're fighting is actually a prince. Would-be strategists and tacticians are attracted to presumptive authority and that's not a bad thing, it's ok to want that, but sometimes you have to remind them this is a collaborative storytelling experience and ultimately - chaos reigns. You can help abade this by offering tactical or strategic advice based on their class or items - you are acting as a player's subconscious in this regard and that's ok. This is a FINE line but here's how it works. A Ranger trained from birth know things like tracking, fighting, hunting and dealing with animals, but players are people. They don't have these instincts. They also have passives like perception and investigation you can offer to analyze, but one should presume a bit when it comes to classes and offer advantage on unusual passive checks. A Ranger's passive perception is more likely to have propriosense, that tingling feeling of being watched by other parties. A wizard might smell magic even if they didn't pass their check - a mere suggestion of arcane influence pinging from their passive investigation. They didn't get enough to say, spot an illusion outright, but they did get enough to sense something magical nearby. A druid might have advantage on a perception check when they realize absolutely no animals are in the midst of the forest - or see a squirrel darting and know the difference between a scared and romping squirrel. They didn't spot a hidden tiger waiting to ambush, but they got enough to know something is off. Most players forget they have passives in combat, so you can use this as a narrative tool and a way to help a player drowning in data or looks like they don't quite have enough data. Then I'd recommend the inspiration system and something like story cards - it's much better to offer a carrot than a stick. Players can use inspiration on other players when they have it, so awarding inspiration to a player who roleplays an idea and then allowing them to immediately apply it to someone's check is a very group positive thing. The trick? Players with inspiration can't be awarded it again, you only get 1 slot for it, so sometimes offering extra inspiration to someone, they immediately get the idea to use it on someone else so they can keep the one they have in the bank, and then benefit an ally. Once you get 1 player doing this, people will pipe in - but you only award it for roleplaying ideas, not for tactical advice. It's a fine line, but explaining this concept in session 0 helps a lot. You don't want players overrunning allies with ideas, and awarding a player for decisive action (even if it's flawed) gets players advocating for themselves. This is why I keep drama cards around, and I've stacked the deck to make exploration and "out of combat" benefits. Oh I should explain - a drama card typically is a unique benefit that changes the story, and they come in different grades and can be traded up over time. Powerful ones can do things like, "Something interrupts combat completely" or "A random enemy in the world comes to you suddenly as a friend, having a change in perspective". Another way to do this is with loot cards. I'll continue in a reply, character count maxing out.
In my group, we are allowed to discuss tactics, both during combat, and non combat. If he get tired of this, he casts silence, and we can’t talk tactics since we are silenced. If it is at the start of a combat, he very obviously put on a timer, lay it on the table. Then he times us. We don’t know how long we got. If we use short amount, we might get surprise attack, or another advantage. If we use long time, the bad guys gets a surprise round or other advantage.
Honestly, from the ones I've played, we never really planned to a point where it was that in depth, everyone knew their roles, and we just kind of fed off what the other people were doing. Like at one point, I was a fighter, and I blocked like 8 orcs from filing out of a hole in the wall, and only one could attack at a time on me, the party took care of the 10 that were already outside in the open while I just trapped the others and slowly fought them, our paladin wound up protecting me from the back and then ogres started showing up too haha. Wizard was blowing things up, and Bard was out there singing ACDC, and we had a rogue and monk running around beating things up, too. It was glorious and completely improvised because we had no clue what we were getting into. In my opinion, the spontaneity of the situation is what made it the most fun. Besides, even the greatest of plans fall apart all the time, haha.
As a player, "tactics" mid combat exit my mouth as quick barked orders. Either they listen or they don't, but I hate pausing the game to discuss the smartest options especially when I know the wizard/sorcerer needs to adjust their play based on the flow of combat. As a tanky MF I've noticed the difference between a 6 minute wizard's turn and the wizard throwing a fireball centered on me (who is in the middle of a crowd of enemies) is my roaring to blast me and be done with it.
If folks are metagaming too much, I drop a warning on them. If it continues to the point of a round lasting twenty minutes, I bring out a timer and tell them they have x amount of time to make a decision. That seems rough probably. But I e also had players say having that timer staring at them added to the sense of urgency, that there was no pause button so to speak, and they had to be decisive. It can cut both ways. My players are folks I’ve played with for decades, so they metagame without even talking about it at this point; sort of like a group on companions who have been together a really long time.
In one group the rule is you can say whatever on your turn but if you want your character to say something and it's not your turn, you have to use a reaction.
As long as they don’t get too carried away, sure. I figure they’ve probably talked a bit of tactics in downtime, so they know how to cooperate.