How do you approach tactics?

[Hussar]

I admit it, I like combat in RPG's. I do. I like to whack stuff. I like wargames too, so, it's not really a big shock. But, something I've run up against in many groups is a fair number of players who are not interested in tactics.

It's not that they're bad players, or disinterested or disruptive. Not at all. These are great people and tons of fun to play with.

But they have the tactical sense of a concussed badger on peyote.

It's the guy who, regardless of anything, charges straight at the enemy every single time. It's the guy who, after listening to the group develop a plan of attack, abandons the plan in the first round and does his or her own thing. It's the guy (or girl as the case may be) who insists on battling mano a mano. That sort of thing.

Now, if these decisions only affected their character, that would be one thing. If it kills their character, well, that's on their head. But, these poor decisions often affect the group. Poor tactics make fights harder, which results in collateral damage.

How does one player convey to another player in an effective way, that following a plan or doing X instead of Y is a good idea without being a dick about it? "Yer Stoopid" is probably not the most effective means of communication, nor is giving the offending player a noogie whenever he screws up.

So, how do you get your fellow gamers to up their game a bit?

 

[billd91]

As a DM, I would recommend that my players handle it all, including the tactics they choose, in character. Rushing in with a full frontal assault is a tactic - just not a very inventive one - and best suited for certain kinds of characters with certain kinds of abilities. Barbarians, well-armored fighters, etc. It might be well in character for them, but not for, say, an elven sorcerer with all the endurance of wet tissue paper.

 

[MerricB]

Ah, the Leeroy Jenkins of this world.

To people so oblivious to good tactics, the way I've seen my players handle it is this: they don't. Well, they help the player build their character, and they suggest options in combat, but mostly it's in vain for the real tactically-challenged of gamers.

What can happen is that the other players build characters to take advantage of the tactically-poor player's tactics. Always charges into melee? Well, we'll do something that involves them being in melee every combat. It can occasionally be done.

And then there are the times that the majority of players realise they want a different experience and leave that player out of their more tactical games.

Or the DM writes adventures that allow for everyone's strengths; not using formulae in the manuals to determine challenge, but instead based on their knowledge of the group.

Of course, this gets a lot more difficult in some systems where the gap becomes too broad - in one game, I had melee PCs whose ACs were about 10-15 points apart. Incredible but true. Some systems can break under optimisational pressure.

Cheers!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I admit it, I like combat in RPG's. I do. I like to whack stuff. I like wargames too, so, it's not really a big shock. But, something I've run up against in many groups is a fair number of players who are not interested in tactics.

It's not that they're bad players, or disinterested or disruptive. Not at all. These are great people and tons of fun to play with.

But they have the tactical sense of a concussed badger on peyote.

It's the guy who, regardless of anything, charges straight at the enemy every single time. It's the guy who, after listening to the group develop a plan of attack, abandons the plan in the first round and does his or her own thing. It's the guy (or girl as the case may be) who insists on battling mano a mano. That sort of thing.

Now, if these decisions only affected their character, that would be one thing. If it kills their character, well, that's on their head. But, these poor decisions often affect the group. Poor tactics make fights harder, which results in collateral damage.

How does one player convey to another player in an effective way, that following a plan or doing X instead of Y is a good idea without being a dick about it? "Yer Stoopid" is probably not the most effective means of communication, nor is giving the offending player a noogie whenever he screws up.

So, how do you get your fellow gamers to up their game a bit?

For some, its nigh impossible. There are guys I game with who always play like "hot-heads"...but that's also incorporated within their PC's design.

Honestly, there is only so much teaching one can do in playing an RPG.

What can happen is that the other players build characters to take advantage of the tactically-poor player's tactics. Always charges into melee? Well, we'll do something that involves them being in melee every combat. It can occasionally be done.

Yep- like equipping Chargikus the Barbarian with all kinds of fire protection and lobbing fireballs into the fray just as he hits the front lines (or whatever target he has chosen to strike). WHAM! POW! BOOM!

 

[Kzach]

I approach tactics sneakily and, if I can, from behind. Tactics may not be Strategy, but he's cunning nevertheless.

 

[Mesh Hong]

As a DM I leave all player tactics completely up to the players, it isn't my job to tell them what to do. It's my job to exploit any combat situation to the best of the monsters ability. It depends on the enemy and the context of the encounter whether it is capable of developing or maintaining any sort of plan.

I don't really have a problem with my players as they are all pretty sound tacticians and know the strengths and weaknesses of their PCs. Occasionally though one will extend itself a little too far and against some enemies this will draw a heavy price.

I also run encounters where the enemy will quite happily try to gank one PC if they can. Tragically my PCs are wise enough to be ready for this and can deal with pretty much any situation between them them.

As a player I think the only thing you can really do is in character try to focus the tactically illiterate on performing one task at a time. "Stop him!" pointing at the massive brute heading towards you, or "I'll make a hole and you charge through and take out the cleric of Lloth".

If these don't work then you will probably have to adopt your own tactics to the combat situation, "OK don't worry we've got your back. Just try to hang on until we can catch up", or "Kord's teeth man, we know you love battle but we are relying on you to defend us!".

 

[Lanefan]

It's not that they're bad players, or disinterested or disruptive. Not at all. These are great people and tons of fun to play with.

But they have the tactical sense of a concussed badger on peyote.

It's the guy who, regardless of anything, charges straight at the enemy every single time. It's the guy who, after listening to the group develop a plan of attack, abandons the plan in the first round and does his or her own thing. It's the guy (or girl as the case may be) who insists on battling mano a mano. That sort of thing.

Instead of complaining, consider yourself blessed!

Those are just the sort of players I want in my game - far more entertaining than players who spend half a session planning a simple battle and run their party like a well-oiled machine!

And I play the game - as player or DM - for entertainment first.

Lan-"I'm charging! Who's with me?"-efan

 

[S'mon]

It seems a bigger problem in 4e, which relies heavily on tactical synergy between the PCs. I've seen the more tactical players offer to rebuild the charge-n-hack guy's PC to take advantage of his tactics; I've seen them try to work around it in their own tactics and builds, but there is no perfect solution.

It seems less of a problem in 1e, which is more environment-simulationist and less rules-tactical. I've seen comments like "Why are you specialised in longbow if you never use it?" but in 1e having PC X be less effective than PC Y is not a big problem, the game design already does that - X might be a non-optimised Fighter, but he could just as well be a Thief. And it's easy to roll up a new PC.

 

[InVinoVeritas]

I think it's important to realize that while there are players who relish tactical combat, there are also players who relish clobberin' time. For some, determining a formation and sticking to plan isn't just outside of their expected experience, it's anathema.

Just let them have their space. You're the tactician, and this is a playing piece you've been given. Use it for what it is, not what you would like it to be.

 

[Pelenor]

I have one group of players that is a pretty mixed bag, and another (at a local gaming club) that I never know what I'm going to get from one month to the next. I try to adjust what I'm doing. If I'm in a group that don't have the best grasp on tactics I dumb down the monsters a bit. It's all about fun in the end and if that means I don't make optimal choices for the npcs and they have to be dumbed down a bit so be it.