Topic: GMs declarations

[DangerMan]

Does the GM have to declare (out loud) the actions of NPC combatants?

We've recenty changed our combat rules (yeah!), and this came up.

The book says "At the same time, the GM should decide what actions the non-player characters will take". So I guess the GM is not requiered to declare actions out loud?

[Kristen Mork]

I think it depends on your style.  I tend not to announce the NPCs' actions, but I do my best to determine their actions before I hear from the players.  I leave myself fudge room to handle NPCs that are smarter than both the PCs and me.  That way, the super-smart dragon can seemingly anticipate the party's actions.

However, I know that in some games, the added transparency would help a) the players learn their options and b) avoid disagreements.

[Ecthelion]

Does the GM have to declare (out loud) the actions of NPC combatants?

IMO he does not have to and should ot even do so. But it helps - in order to not let yourself get influenced by the PCs' actions - to determine (without saying aloud) the NPC action before the player declare the actions for their PCs.

[RandalThor]

I think it all boils down to the combat perception (or whatever you call the skill/ability) of the participants. Those with high CP should be able to determine what others are doing better. This is why I prefer to use Situational Awareness: Combat as a way to modify initiative, not an arbitry random roll. Those will the lowest SA:C check declare their actions first, and you go on up the list - including NPCs. So, if the NPC in question has a low check, they will declare the PCs with higher will be able to call their actions.

I will say that this method truly only works in those games that have combat rounds of more than a couple of second - like minimum of 5 seconds. In those games with absurdly short combat rounds (like the 1 second for GURPS and teh 2 second for HARP) a strict GO!GO!GO! method is best where you just go down in normal initiative order (highest to lowest) with everyone declaring beforehand. In this case, I would probably have the NPCs declare - unless they are doing a particularly sneaking action. (The only reason a PC has to declare their sneaky action is because you - the GM - have to be able to work it into the combat round.)

[DangerMan]

What ever suits your game.. of course. But we're a democratic bunch, and in our little circle we tend to go by the RAW when ever there persisted disagreement.

[markc]

I think it all boils down to the combat perception (or whatever you call the skill/ability) of the participants. Those with high CP should be able to determine what others are doing better. This is why I prefer to use Situational Awareness: Combat as a way to modify initiative, not an arbitry random roll. Those will the lowest SA:C check declare their actions first, and you go on up the list - including NPCs. So, if the NPC in question has a low check, they will declare the PCs with higher will be able to call their actions.

I will say that this method truly only works in those games that have combat rounds of more than a couple of second - like minimum of 5 seconds. In those games with absurdly short combat rounds (like the 1 second for GURPS and teh 2 second for HARP) a strict GO!GO!GO! method is best where you just go down in normal initiative order (highest to lowest) with everyone declaring beforehand. In this case, I would probably have the NPCs declare - unless they are doing a particularly sneaking action. (The only reason a PC has to declare their sneaky action is because you - the GM - have to be able to work it into the combat round.)

  I use a different combat system that is very free flowing but lately I have been running a Battletec game and have liked the mothod RandalThor talked about above as it is the same as in Battletec. The players also like it when they know what the others are doing.
  Note in RM you can change your actions so you do not allways know for sure what the others are doing for the whole round.
 
MDC

[Marc R]

I tend to declare what they appear to be doing, while only I know what they are doing. . . .overly tactical games where you get "And the invisible assassin you can't see intends to come around the pillar behind Joe, and make a full OB attack to his back." can be a bit of a buzzkill.

I tend to write down stuff if it's a big combat, like when I say "The two orcs advance with swords in attack position." I might jot down "Orc 1 40/20 OB/DB on joe, Orc 2 40/20 on Billy". . .and I tend to decide and write down splits before the PCs declare them, but don't tell them, because I tend to find that to be too much info sharing with the PCs.

[markc]

I tend to declare what they appear to be doing, while only I know what they are doing. . . .overly tactical games where you get "And the invisible assassin you can't see intends to come around the pillar behind Joe, and make a full OB attack to his back." can be a bit of a buzzkill.

I tend to write down stuff if it's a big combat, like when I say "The two orcs advance with swords in attack position." I might jot down "Orc 1 40/20 OB/DB on joe, Orc 2 40/20 on Billy". . .and I tend to decide and write down splits before the PCs declare them, but don't tell them, because I tend to find that to be too much info sharing with the PCs.

  I agree that there are times to break from the rules above.
 
MDC

[Grinnen Baeritt]

I use action cards.. as do the players which as preselected by all then penalised (opportunity action penalty) if the selcted major action is not adhered to. These allow a certain amount of leeway for both sides, in most cases this works fine. Where they don't then I'll bring the "rule of thumb" into play.   

[DangerMan]

I tend to declare what they appear to be doing, while only I know what they are doing. . . .overly tactical games where you get "And the invisible assassin you can't see intends to come around the pillar behind Joe, and make a full OB attack to his back." can be a bit of a buzzkill.

HaHa! It was that exact situation that sparked our discussion in the first place 

[RandalThor]

I tend to declare what they appear to be doing, while only I know what they are doing. . . .overly tactical games where you get "And the invisible assassin you can't see intends to come around the pillar behind Joe, and make a full OB attack to his back." can be a bit of a buzzkill.

HaHa! It was that exact situation that sparked our discussion in the first place 

Psychic Point for LordMiller!

[pastaav]

I write down the actions of the NPC, but say some general descriptions. If characters have Situaltional Awarness Combat that mean they should have a better idea of what is happening they receive a note or a quick brief outside the room.

[markc]

   I keep the NPC's actions in myhead and do not change them unless the NPC is very very smart or some such thing. the players just have to trust me.
MDC