In Game Discussions

Originally published March,14,2012

This is a subject about which I have some very mixed feelings: prolonged in-game discussions about what the characters’ course of action will be. In many cases I really enjoy this and feel it can enrich a campaign. On the other hand I've seen this ruin otherwise great games.

Let’s start with the negative side of things. Obviously the more a group spends discussing what they do, the less time they will spend actually doing anything. This can really kill any game with a time limit, in-game or out of it. Games at convention are the worst in this aspect. If you have 6 hours to complete the story but 2 hours are lost in discussion of what to do, it is likely the game will end mid adventure. For in-game time limits, an hour long discussion can rob adventures of their momentum. For example if you are chasing down the bad guy and the group gets diverted for 10 minutes discussing the best route to cut him off and what you will do once you catch him, it removes some of the thrill and spontaneity of the game.

Now the good side is where the planning and the reasons behind them reveal something about the characters. I see this a good deal in my online Mage: the Awakening game. A player character (PC) brings up their dire destiny and tries to see how it relates to the current situation. Another PC airs their suspicions of that one of their allies might be behind the problem. As a game master (GM), these situations always give me a thrill as well as giving me a moment to catch my breath to prepare for the next scene. As a player, I’ll admit enjoying tactical discussions and trying to out-think the GM or enemy non-player characters.

Ultimately I think that the responsibility for managing these situations belongs to the GM. It is their duty to manage the pace of the game. If the mood should be hectic, then they should introduce something to break up discussion. If the discussion is going too long and there is an outside time pressure (like at a convention), then they should just step in and cut the discussion short. They should guide the group to a quick vote and then proceed with the action.

There is also a role for players in this however. If you are in a game where the group is losing focus, each arguing their own course of action, don’t contribute to it. For the good of the group, yield on your own point and give support to another person’s idea. Ultimately we want to play an enjoyable game and it is better to move to a consensus than to ruin the game for everyone trying to force your own ideas on the group.

So what are your thoughts on this situation?