Tactical arguments and how to avoid them

If you suck at tactics yourself, figure out which of your fellow players is best at tactics, and always back that one.

If you can't even figure out who of your fellow players actually has some tactical sense, ask your DM! Most likely, *he* will know (especially if said player keeps guessing the DM's plot ahead of time, only to be shouted down by noisier players )

Glyfair said:

For example, sniffles admits to being hopeless with tactics. If the character isn't supposed to be hopeless at tactics, I wouldn't mind a more tactical player making suggestions.

Click to expand...

Sniffles should certianly have a bolster, yes. But as GM, I'd prefer to do that myself. I already fill in the holes when the PC is more charismatic, or has other knowledges the player lacks. So, it makes sense for me to do this. That allows me to at least try to be even-handed with how help gets about, and it tends to avoid the arguments.

It shouldn't devolve into the argument level

Click to expand...

Yeah, well, tactical discussion should never get to the argument level in any situation. But the existance of the thread suggests that "shouldn't" and "doesn't" are not the same. We must recognize that our players are human beings, and part of the GM's job is to deal with such foibles when they impact the game

,

Umbran said:

Sniffles should certianly have a bolster, yes. But as GM, I'd prefer to do that myself. I already fill in the holes when the PC is more charismatic, or has other knowledges the player lacks. So, it makes sense for me to do this. That allows me to at least try to be even-handed with how help gets about, and it tends to avoid the arguments.



Yeah, well, tactical discussion should never get to the argument level in any situation. But the existance of the thread suggests that "shouldn't" and "doesn't" are not the same. We must recognize that our players are human beings, and part of the GM's job is to deal with such foibles when they impact the game

,

Click to expand...

You always have the most well-reasoned responses, Umbran.
We don't really devolve into arguments, just slightly heated discussions on occasion. Generally whoever proposes a particular plan thinks their plan is best and sticks to that, leading to two or three options, all equally viable (at least to me). Even if we voted I wouldn't know whose plan to vote for.

Our problem isn't lack of planning, it's over-planning. We're all paranoid that we haven't assessed all the risks and prepared for all possibilities.

I don't think we'd want to use Diplomacy rolls after all, because we generally try to avoid using skills versus other player-characters. Maybe my best option is to follow LostSoul's suggestion.

Groups that I've been in that spend too much time planning were usually groups that got smacked down hard multiple times previously. It was a symptom of a larger issue. Players were getting frustrated by being defeated either by chance (bad rolling) or by poor DMing (power trip DM, unfamiliar with CR DM, always has to win DM, only parties that use perfect strategy survive DM, etc). By trying to plan for every possibility, the players were trying to avoid yet another frustrating session where their PCs get beat down.

Extensive planning once in a while is fun. A session based on a covert assault, sneaky heist or avoiding the sleeping dragon is cool. Planning for every fight probably means the players are being too conservative and don't feel like they can take the risks to be heroic adventurers.

lonesoldier said:

snip

My group (in RL) has some basic strategies planned in advance. ("Fall back and use ranged weapons," "Cover the casters," "Charge!") The party leader generally gives the order, but everyone knows what they are doing... more or less...

Click to expand...

Both PHBII and DMGII have some Teamwork concepts that are great ideas for this type of approach. You don't even have to actually use these elements to get some use out of them. They are great examples for tacitcal play, and cover quite a few different scenarios.

Chaldfont said:

Groups that I've been in that spend too much time planning were usually groups that got smacked down hard multiple times previously. It was a symptom of a larger issue. Players were getting frustrated by being defeated either by chance (bad rolling) or by poor DMing (power trip DM, unfamiliar with CR DM, always has to win DM, only parties that use perfect strategy survive DM, etc). By trying to plan for every possibility, the players were trying to avoid yet another frustrating session where their PCs get beat down.

Extensive planning once in a while is fun. A session based on a covert assault, sneaky heist or avoiding the sleeping dragon is cool. Planning for every fight probably means the players are being too conservative and don't feel like they can take the risks to be heroic adventurers.

Click to expand...

You know, that second paragraph perfectly sums our group up IMHO, but I don't know why we're that way because the things you mention in the first paragraph don't apply - at least not to this group. I guess some of the other players could have learned to think that way while playing with other groups. I've never played with anyone else.

sniffles said:

You know, that second paragraph perfectly sums our group up IMHO, but I don't know why we're that way because the things you mention in the first paragraph don't apply - at least not to this group. I guess some of the other players could have learned to think that way while playing with other groups. I've never played with anyone else.

Click to expand...

Lead by example. While the others are wasting time planning, kick in the door, swing on the chandelier and save the princess. Then run past the rest of your party with the evil wizard's guardians chomping at your heels.

"I got the princess, guys! You get the guards!"

People play according to different styles. Many games I've played in at conventions devolve into endless planning. I'm there for ADVENTURE! I want to play a game like Indiana Jones, not Blackhawk Down. But people typically loosen up when shown that they can get away with heroism and not get big fist-fulls of damage dice rolled at them.

In the case of an encounter the party knows about and can plan for, our group has one player (me) who will usually take the time to develop a team strategy that everyone goes along with. Most of the others aren't interested enough to spend much time coming up with a combat strategy, so they're fine with me handing them a sheet of paper that says "cast these spells before combat, these spells at the start of combat, then take care of X, Y, and Z once things are rolling."

In a campaign where more than one person is interested in this kind of thing, I'd probably set up an internet messageboard so the interested parties could hash out such a combat strategy between games and, as the DM, structure my games so that such planning sessions always took place between sessions (i.e. I wouldn't introduce a set encounter at the start of a session, so that the various parties spend the entire session debating various tactics. I'd introduce it at the end of the game, so they could do all the debating over the week.)

Regarding in-combat personal tactics, we generally allow folks to give advice. Some are more strategically minded than others. And most players will know their characters' own abilities more than others, so they can offer suggestions based on that information. However, the final decision is always up to the player. We, as a table, often remind folks of this, if the tactical suggestions get too forceful. Regardless of how tactically un-sound an action may be, each player has the freedom to play his character however he likes. He can take the advice given, or do something else entirely.

Chaldfont said:

Lead by example. While the others are wasting time planning, kick in the door, swing on the chandelier and save the princess. Then run past the rest of your party with the evil wizard's guardians chomping at your heels.

"I got the princess, guys! You get the guards!"

Click to expand...

Leeroy Jenkins!!

Though dying a glorious death can be fun sometimes.

ThirdWizard said:

Leeroy Jenkins!!

Click to expand...

I swear it sounds like he says, "At least I've got chicken." at the end of that clip.