How do you approach tactics?

[S'mon]

Despite RC's analysis in a thread in OT - 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 (because I suspect various action movies have greater impact upon expectations) - it's about dramatic background music and some guy wearing nearly no armor, glistening with sweat and whirling around with a sword and the other guys all falling down.

I haven't read RC's analysis, but certainly in the REH stories Conan is highly tactical in how he fights (as are Fafhrd/Mouser), up to and including running away. People familiar with the literature may have a different view from others, but I seem to remember a good deal of planning by Conan in the CtB movie too, notably the Battle of the Mounds is all about the planning.

 

[S'mon]

It worked for John Carter of Mars.

And for Elric. Both are superpowered heroes, not badass normals.

By contrast, OD&D by-the-book 1st level PCs are pretty well just 'normals', in a greater-than-real-world-lethality game, hence the wardogs. Personally I like a few tweaks to my O/Classic/A D&D to get more of a badass normal S&S feel straight out the gate.

 

[Ariosto]

'Improvement' has little to do with it. Players who like to swashbuckle or play rash, imprudent characters aren't playing badly, they're merely have different goals vis a vis the role-playing experience.

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".

Ditto the player in a card game, or ball game, or what have you, who would rather be doing something else.

There's nothing underhanded about calling setting up the team to lose "playing badly". What matters is what happens to be appropriate to the circumstances at hand, the actual undertaking in which we are participants.

 

[billd91]

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".

Ditto the player in a card game, or ball game, or what have you, who would rather be doing something else.

There's nothing underhanded about calling setting up the team to lose "playing badly". What matters is what happens to be appropriate to the circumstances at hand, the actual undertaking in which we are participants.

I'm not sure you're answering Mallus as clearly as you think. In an RPG, what is the actual undertaking? 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. Playing a less tactically savvy game may improve your character portrayal, though at greater risk of character injury or death.

 

[Ariosto]

Low-level D&D play

bares precious little resemblance to classic swords and sorcery fiction.

Wow! You mean Thongor Against the Gods is not a typical 1st-level character?

Classic swords and sorcery fiction is
(a) fiction, not D&D
(b) typically about characters who, if translated to D&D would be at the very least superheroes (8th level). I seem to recall Conan, Elric, Fafhrd and Mouser getting write-ups well into the teens.

That may be over-rating some or all, in order to make "legendary" figures of fiction seem as impressive in a D&D context that rather more resembles Marvel Super Heroes.

"As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe ... [AD&D] can be deemed only a dismal failure." (Gygax, pointing out in the DMG that this was in fact not a design goal. If one really wants to model the Hyborian Age or Nehwon or the Young Kingdoms, then one might do well to look elsewhere.)

Well, what would be the consequence if super-heroic were the starting point and we kept piling levels on top of that? What I have found in practice is that people who build up characters into the early teens (if that far) soon retire them for lack of interest, and take up characters less like gods.

If you want to play "one-man army" types, play "name level" characters.

 

[radmod]

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

As both a player and a DM, I tend to be very tactical.
As a player, sometimes there is absolutely no help for other players. Just do the best you can with them, and let them fry in their own situations. For example, I've sat back and let the idiot hack-n-slasher run up and get beat on. Then we he came asking for healing I would deny it or give him just enough to stay alive. That generally gets them thinking quickly.
Most of all, it depends on your actual character. For example, I'm playing an evil character who pretty much doesn't care what happens to the party just himself, so he forces tactics when necessary for his own survival.
As a DM, I use tactics according to the abilities of the monsters. A band of raging orcs wouldn't be as tactically smart as a well-trained group of soldiers. In addition, if players do something stupid, I might take advantage of it as an object lesson for them. However, often times my groups have spent literally hours preparing to sneak in, or "back-door" an encounter but then wind up doing a frontal attack anyway.

 

[Ariosto]

In an RPG, what is the actual undertaking? What is playing badly?

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

If you're playing "Paranoia", or "Toon", or something else, then what is appropriate may be different.

If the game is D&D, then there "used to be" the quaint assumption that someone seeking to join an adventure does so to contribute to its success, not to sabotage it. Someone who is merely incompetent is likely to be sent packing in short order. Someone who is actively seeking the deaths of other party members might end up dead himself.

What's that?

It's role-playing.

You get your kicks playing Ash? Well, you can probably do that longer somewhere other than where you're messing with Ripley!

 

[Tallifer]

My current group is having trouble with tactics; we usually wind up with tic-tacs instead.

We have one of those "Charge!' types, me mostly. In my defense my character is light cavalry, her job is to run around being a target. She's good at it. In most fights she takes the most damage. I consider this a victory of sorts.

Our wizard is pretty good, rarely hits us with area of effect spells. He does have a knack for picking spell loads that are exactly wrong for the situations that we subsequently find ourselves in. Not a tactical error of course, just Murphy's Law.

But our big fall down is our Cleric of Kord. He just doesn't get it. Doesn't like to heal in combat. Power attacks everything. Blows his big attacks/spells in the first fight of every day. Frequently ignores allies in trouble to go kill mooks. Last fight we ran he stood in a bonfire (without any protection) because that was the only place his Great Cleave could reach all the mooks.

All up it's a wonder we survived to adulthood at all.

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?)

 

[Lord Zardoz]

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

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I'm a wargamer and pretty good at it (though somewhat rusty these days) however, in rpgs I would play combat in character. If I am the up and at 'em barbarian then that is what I do.
It can be fun, I have played more tactical characters also. Now there are players that just do not get tactics and never will. You can game with them, just factor them in to your tactical play. It is more a problem for the DM since they set a limit for the challange that the party can take on.
Yes, the DM can kill the party but do that to ofter and they will go find another DM.
Not everyone is tactically astute, in a real war these guys will be the first casualties but we are not doing real life but a game, in which we want to have fun.