How do you approach tactics?

[Umbran]

Never mind that most people's exposure to Conan in novels is through De Camp.

Well, I used the term "cinematic" combat for a reason. I would expect that at this point, most people who think of Conan first have the image from the movies in mind, not any book at all. And that's an important point here. We are talking about combat that looks like stuff from action movies.

In books, you often get a look into a character's thoughts, and you may see signs of ferocity backed by careful planning, timing or the like - you can see that in Fafhrd and Grey Mouser tales, if you pay attention while you are reading. But in most action movies, you see the ferocity, but not so much the planning.

 

[the Jester]

renau1g - I got no beefs with it if it gets his or her character killed. No skin off my nose. But, when other PC's get killed because of the actions of another player, it does tend to raise at least an eyebrow.

That's a player on player discussion. It's not the dm's role to tell the players how to play imho; if the party is suffering because one pc is not using good tactics, it's the party that should deal with it.

 

[Umbran]

It worked for John Carter of Mars.

I'm listening to Princess of Mars, the first John Carter story, right now on my commutes to work. In the very beginning of the character's time on Mars, Burroughs establishes John Carter as pretty much the strongest, most agile, and generally baddest mother on the red planet: Earthly muscles on a light-gravity world (even though John Carter's Earthly body is... still back on Earth, go figure!) He picks up new weapon skills, telepathic powers, and whole new languages within about two weeks of being on Mars.

The point being that Burroughs goes out of his way to set up his story so that while some strategy may be called for, tactics are not usually necessary. Against any individual person (or even moderate collections of persons) that John Carter will win is pretty much a foregone conclusion.

 

[Mallus]

That particular meme does not have to be disingenuous. It really depends on what kind of game is being run and what the players agreed to.

Yeah, I realize that... I admit I was being peevish.

The problem arises from everyone having different expectations about the real genre being emulated and not communicating about it.

When you put that way, I agree completely. It can be tricky w/D&D, pinning down what genres are being emulated, and how. Open communication is a must. As is realizing your limits. If your find you can't enjoy running a campaign in your player's preferred style(s), then it's time to step aside as DM.

 

[Oryan77]

Weird that this thread would pop up now, I was just discussing the tactical play with my group yesterday via email! I was thinking about posting this same kind of thread.

Encounters in our game usually take a long time (compared to what I've heard other people say about the length of their encounters). Even a very very very weak encounter seems to drag on for at least an hour. It seems like we can go 4 rounds without a single one of my NPCs getting wounded. Or if they are, it's just a scratch. Yet, by that time, the PCs are casting cures already.

And it isn't because the PCs are taking 4 rounds to buff up. I may only see one PC do 1 buff in an entire encounter. So it's hard for me to figure out what is going on from their end.

I emailed them some tactical advice yesterday. I think one problem might be that it seems like the more powerful PCs always attack all the weaker NPCs and the lower level PCs always attack the most powerful NPCs. But according to all of them, they seem to be very confident in their tactical abilities (they do keep winning the fights, it just takes forever & it's usually a close call). So I feel more like I'm annoying them than helping. So I am going to shutup and not worry about it. Two of the players are new to D&D and a 3rd player is my wife who hates combat. So I try to go somewhat easy on them during encounters, and even then I'm scratching my head wondering how none of my NPCs have been wounded yet.

I figure I must be tripping for no reason since I see things differently from my side of the DM screen. If they aren't worried about their tactical play, then they must be doing just fine. I was just wondering if other DMs make assumptions like I have that may be wrong.

 

[Barastrondo]

In books, you often get a look into a character's thoughts, and you may see signs of ferocity backed by careful planning, timing or the like - you can see that in Fafhrd and Grey Mouser tales, if you pay attention while you are reading. But in most action movies, you see the ferocity, but not so much the planning.

Also, I can't help but mention that Fafhrd, often a careful planner, ran away from home by jumping a chasm on skis with rockets under either arm. And then got into a swordfight while he was still on his skis. Strategy and tactics are good things, but it's kind of evident that even some of the grand masters of sword & sorcery thought in term of dramatic set pieces.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I tend to not worry too much about player tactics, though I do approach each major combat encounter with the thought of, “If I were the group, what would I do here?”
Of course, 80% of the time they do something else.

Most of the time, I am concerned about monster tactics. But, I tend to base that on the monster’s intelligence and ability. In 4E, the goblins are going to attempt to take advantage of goblin tactics and flanking, while hobgoblins work best when sticking together with the other hobgoblins and so on.

For the players, I am happy if they do the simple things to help each other out – using a power or ability to push or slide a monster out of a position adjacent to another PC, the shaman using his healing spirit to its best ability, the bard using his ritual to boost the party speed when they know a combat is coming, etc. I do not expect more than that, though I have rewarded good strategy with an easier encounter.

Between sessions, I may make a suggestion or two based on a character’s ability, “As a fighter, your character is aware of the combat situation well enough to know that if you did at-will ability X instead of your normal ability Y, you would be more effective against the foes you expect to face next session” I only do stuff like that if I felt a player missed something in game and we forgot to mention it at the table, as these things can be easy to forget in the heat of the moment.

However, I will also add at the end, if the players are high enough level and are facing groups of similar foes (i.e., the followers of the evil god of slavery and tyranny), the bad guys will adjust their tactics if the players do the same thing every time out.

In my last campaign (3.5E), we had a big group of players and they generally had the same overall tactics – the dwarf fighter and goliath barbarian would charge into combat at the nearest foes, the elf paladin of freedom/champion of Corellon would engage the bad guy with the best melee ability, as he had an amazingly high AC, the sorcerer would hurl acid-based spells, the rogue would attempt to flank with the elf paladin, etc. They were engaged in attempting to stop the followers of the aforementioned evil god of slavery and tyranny (as opposed to the good god of slavery and tyranny).

As they got higher in level and knew a combat was coming, they would decide which buffing spells to cast prior to combat, which is pretty tactical in thinking. (Somebody on here wrote that high level spellcasters spent a lot of time buffing & debuffing in high level combats in 3.5)

Once the party gained in level and reputation, though, the bad guys who followed this evil deity were able to adjust some of their tactics and knew they had to hit the elf with Area of Effect spells instead of engaging him in melee (his touch AC was also high due to high Dodge bonuses), while the dwarf and goliath were vulnerable to ranged touch attacks, and the party psion was deadly with his short-range Crystal Shard, and so on.
Granted, I did not let that affect how a signature foe would attack them, for example, the drow duskblade that had survived four previous encounters with the party still rushed to engage the elf in melee, as she was sort of the mirror opposite to the paladin of freedom.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

As a player, the level of tactics I employ varies, though I do have a tendency towards tactical thinking. I err on the side of analyzing the battlefield for advantage, but I do modify that on a per character basis.

If I'm playing a Barbarian (any edition), he tends to be the sort who lops off arms first and asks questions later. That doesn't mean I fight like an idiot. Just that I tend to take a direct approach. Tactically sound, but straightforward. If I'm playing a Warlord or a high Wis Fighter, I'm likely to approach a fight looking for maximum tactical advantage. I don't encourage the table to spend time before we attack on planning, but once in combat I will try to use positioning and terrain to create chokepoints, flanking, etc. Set up the minions in one place for the controller to knock down, and so on.

I haven't yet played a controller in 4e, but I suspect I would get a little crazy with status effects and terrain alteration, given the opportunity.

 

[coyote6]

As a GM, I let the players handle the tactics, though I will sometimes ry to encourage character-appropriate tactical thinking and teamwork. As a player, I tend to think tactically, though it depends on the character and the game, too. I've played characters who intentionally were tactically challenged in some way; they can be great fun.

Leroy Jenkins - yup, that's the MtG term for it isn't it.

MtG must've stolen Leeroy from WoW.

 

[Ariosto]

One fellow in my current AD&D group is extremely impetuous. The last time he charged blindly, he turned right around and fled blindly past us in babbling terror.

He had not been our only problem of coordination, but that was the catalyst for our electing a leader.

As to what seems the real question -- not how we approach tactics, but how we approach one another -- that is a matter of (a) being compassionate and (b) knowing the right language (which can include "body language").

Now, (b) may not be much of an issue if you've already got a relationship in which people are predisposed to take things in the most charitable light. This fellow was not likely to get pissed off unless people acted way out of keeping with how we normally treat each other.

The case, though, may be a good example because we addressed the matter as a problem with the group, not a problem with him.