How do you approach tactics?

[TheAuldGrump]

Darwin is a great teacher. If a player keeps making tactically unsound choices, then the character will end up becoming dead sooner rather than later.

Let the problem take care of its self or not as the case may be, and do not over think it too much.

END COMMUNICATION

Time for a public service announcement:

(From Queen of Wands.)

The Auld Grump

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Not to pick on you, EW, but that particular meme is a pet peeve of mine. It's really disingenuous. What it really means is: the deaths will continue until you all agree to play like me. Adopt my play style or watch your characters die!

'Improvement' has little to do with it.

I don't think that's what EW's getting at, which is why I gave him XP for that post. I- and many of the guys I've gamed with over the years- have a similar attitude.

If I may...

Its not that I as a DM I want you to change your playstyle. I, as DM won't be changing mine, after all.

What I expect is that your PC be played like he would be if he were "real"...as in, his cinematic self.

That means that I'm usually not fudging dice to save you: if you routinely charge into impossible odds, eventually your PC is going to die. I'm also not going to go out of my way to punish you for playing your PC that way. And there is nothing wrong with any of that as long as we both understand this.

I mean, look at the source material- examine any swashbuckler or other fantasy hero, you'll see at least one moment when the odds go against them, and they get captured or, in some cases, killed. Or they get someone else killed or captured.

FWIW, I've been on the other side of this- I sacrificed my AD&D fighter, Bear, holding off the City Watch on a bridge, allowing the party to escape. Given that he was only of moderate level, I'd have been ticked if the DM had fudged rolls to let him escape his fate. It would have cheapened the moment. Instead, he went out in a blaze of glory.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I sneak up on tactics, preferably (in 4E) diagonally. It never suspects I am close enough but somehow I get there quicker than expected.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

It is a shame that your cleric is not a healer in practice. But since you realize this, you should not expose your own charcater to so much damage. Why do you think it is your role to run around taking the most damage? If it is for roelplaying reasons, then I guess you have to accept the cleric's lame tactics as well.

(And by the way, the purpose of light cavalry is to harrass the enemy and spy on them, never to thrust itself into full combat. Heavy cavalry is for charging. I guess your character is a berserker then?)

Oh our cleric does heal. Just not in combat. It cuts into his valuable 'smack-down' time. Do I accept the cleric's lame tactics? Some days. But some days his tactics go well beyond role play or just ordinary lame and deep into bloody stupid. Those days can be a bit trying. Still, he's a good mate and a fun, easy going guy so why bust has chops about it, hey?

Why do I run around in combat taking the hits? Because I take my role as meat shield very seriously. Ya see, my character is not optimised. As such she has fallen behind the power curve, especially since we're playing an Adventure Path. (APs seem, to me, to be designed to take on big min-maxed characters. I could be wrong.) She doesn't deal out a lot of damage. But she does provide flanking bonuses, trips foes, stands between the elf archer (our most consistant damage dealer) and trouble. She has decent HP and so can take some lumps. In short, she's a good distraction. Works quite well and I enjoy it.

Lately her build has caught up with the curve. Synergies have built up and she has (finally) gotten a STR boost item to make up for her low to-hit/damage. She's taken Leadership and gotten a bard follower specifically to cast buff spells on her. (And everyone is loving the Bardic Song bonus to hit and damage too.)

As we've gone up levels we are using more of the standard DnD 'buff and attack' tactics. Frankly it's gotten so that we can't avoid using them if we want to survive the fights. This is cool, and as people have been playing together for a while now (the group has been together for just over a year) we are better able to adjust to each other's play styles. Tactics are, slowly but surely, creeping into our play.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Likewise, the fellow who makes moves in Axis & Allies that set up his forces for destruction -- and then expects some other consequence -- "merely has different goals vis a vis the board-gaming experience".

What is this strangeness before me. . .? This is not how board game analogies usually go!

Mind you, it is every bit as irrelevant, not surprisingly.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

Ah, the Leeroy Jenkins of this world.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkCNJRfSZBU]YouTube - Leeroy Jenkins[/ame]

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think the common perception of Sword and Sorcery is Conan the Barbarian being none to discriminating about how he goes about a fight. Never mind how well that is supported by the text

I believe it is fairly well supported in REH's text. Conan often takes on foes without a plan, and wins thru sheer aggression and incredible physical capabilities. It's supposed to be escapist fantasy for the Depression era after all, that's pulp. In the Slithering Shadow he even slays a Cthulhoid monstrosity, worshipped as a god, though he is badly wounded in the process. It falls over an edge to its doom, which is a classic adventure fiction method of BBEG execution.

In Red Nails he prepares poison to kill a 'dragon' from which he at first runs away. In The Phoenix on the Sword Conan fights a large group of armed men single-handed, killing several. He does use some tactics tho, lodging himself in a corner to limit their advantage of numbers.

Compare with the rpg Call of Cthulhu, where it's expected that the PCs always need a plan if they want to survive, and also the way Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser fight, which is much slower, more tactical, and more realistic than REH's Conan imo.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I have absolutely no problem with substandard and near-suicidal tactics. If the barbarian wants to charge in like a maniac, let him. On the other hand I do have a problem with tactics that don't fit. If the rogue wants to charge in like a maniac, that's bad.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Well, what would be the consequence if super-heroic were the starting point and we kept piling levels on top of that?

You'd start off as Batman and end up as Superman.

 

[Mallus]

Likewise, the fellow who makes moves in Axis & Allies that set up his forces for destruction -- and then expects some other consequence -- "merely has different goals vis a vis the board-gaming experience".

The number, and precise disposition, of different victory conditions in D&D is much larger in D&D than in a board game like Axis and Allies (ie, there are a lot more ways to play, win, and play well). Those victory conditions are also far more negotiable. YMMV.

There's nothing underhanded about calling setting up the team to lose "playing badly".

There's something a little, well, incorrect, in assuming all D&D players have the same set of victory conditions, thus the precise definitions of 'winning' and 'losing' are kinda fuzzy. They tend to vary in accordance to play style(s).

What is playing badly? Not playing an interesting or convincing character in exciting stories? Or not using the mechanical rules in the smartest way? I think that's partly what Mallus is getting at here. These goals of play may be at odds with each other.

Exactly!

Also, my other bit of advice was: trying dialing down the difficulty of your opponents. If less-savvy foes are providing your group with an adequate challenge --and not a cake-walk-- then make it so. Unless you find that too boring as DM, in which case, you should consider stepping down.

It's not just "an RPG". It's a particular game.

A particular game played many, many different ways, since the very beginning. Surely you've noticed this -- note I'm seriously asking you this question.

What is this strangeness before me. . .? This is not how board game analogies usually go!

Mind you, it is every bit as irrelevant, not surprisingly.

Give him credit, he's trying to keep things fresh!