How do you approach tactics?

[Kzach]

The funny thing is, from what I've been told, Leeroy wasn't doing anything wrong persay. The rest of the party had spent a ludicrous amount of time coming up with a plan that would have had the exact same effect. I don't play WoW, so this is admittedly hearsay, but is intricately planed failure better tactics then failure do to enthusiastically charging in?

Egads no.

Wow, at least in high-end raid content that hasn't been nerfed into oblivion for casuals, is incredibly tactical and requires good strategy and execution to down bosses. Quite often a fight will hinge on one or two people's ability to do a specific thing and if they screw it up, the raid wipes.

There's even a term for it, 'raid awareness'. If you don't know when to get out of the fire, you're a noob, and can go back to LFG.

As for D&D, I seriously hate the Leeroy types. It's nothing but pure laziness and impatience. I was DM'ing for a group recently where I had laid out a scenario and told everyone ahead of the game my views on tactics, strategy and character death.

I was very clear about how I do not put 'level appropriate' encounters in the character's path. It's up to the players to determine what they can and can't take on, and if they don't retreat, the most likely option is going to be character death.

And that's exactly what happened in that session. I described the situation very clearly and plainly and they all KNEW beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they were out-matched and out-numbered and had no tactical advantage.

And yet... they charged forth anyway and got slaughtered. This pissed me off because my DM'ing style is that they choose where to go and I just put what I think should be there, in front of them, meaning they could've gone a thousand different directions and found something else to do. They could've easily backed away (they hadn't engaged, the enemy wasn't even aware of them at this point) and found an enemy they could take on. But no, you put a big, red button in front of a player, and they HAVE to push it, regardless of the fact that it has in big, bold letters, "YOU WILL DIE IF YOU PRESS THIS BUTTON!"

 

[Hussar]

Heh, I can empathise Kzach.

How did you deal with it?

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm quite conflicted here. I like the tactical part of the game and, to a lesser extent, the strategic, and I'm down with having to make a decision about when to fight and when to run. When we played 3e D&D, we run away quite a few times, we're definitely not 'no surrender' types.

And yet I can totally understand that a player might be very good in a number of ways - nice person, portrays character's personality well, interested in the game world - and yet be terrible at the tactical side of things. And I can understand players wanting to be big damn heroes. Like the heroes in fiction, they take on impossible odds all the time, and triumph. Or even if they fail, the last stand, the doomed 'Charge of the Light Brigade', the Alamo, all that stuff, it's pretty darned heroic. Many players might prefer to die a hero than live as a coward.

So yeah, as Mallus says, if a normally pro-tactics GM has these types of players, it's a matter of who changes first, isn't it? Does the GM change to accomodate the players or do the players change to accomodate the GM? Either approach is perfectly reasonable imo.

 

[Hussar]

Honestly though Doug, the problem to me isn't who breaks first - the DM or the group, but, rather, what happens when you've got half the group who wants to be Big Damn Heroes, and the other half wants to be tactical?

 

[Doug McCrae]

Honestly though Doug, the problem to me isn't who breaks first - the DM or the group, but, rather, what happens when you've got half the group who wants to be Big Damn Heroes, and the other half wants to be tactical?

Well, as Mallus says, I do think it's perfectly reasonable in this situation to ask the GM to make the fights easier. I think the correct level of challenge in a rpg has to fit the players, taking the party as a whole. It looks like the non-tactical players aren't going to change, so something else has to. This is purely a pragmatic, practical view. This is a problem, what's the easiest, quickest way to solve it?

Imx people either have a tactical head or they don't and that never changes. The major difference is between tactically-minded players who are just beginning to learn a system and those who have mastered it. Though, that said, some people who appear non-tactical might be roleplaying a particular character or they may think that a certain approach is expected in this game, the BDH approach, but be perfectly capable of playing in different ways.

 

[Krensky]

Egads no.

Wow, at least in high-end raid content that hasn't been nerfed into oblivion for casuals, is incredibly tactical and requires good strategy and execution to down bosses. Quite often a fight will hinge on one or two people's ability to do a specific thing and if they screw it up, the raid wipes.

There's even a term for it, 'raid awareness'. If you don't know when to get out of the fire, you're a noob, and can go back to LFG.

As for D&D, I seriously hate the Leeroy types. It's nothing but pure laziness and impatience. I was DM'ing for a group recently where I had laid out a scenario and told everyone ahead of the game my views on tactics, strategy and character death.

I was very clear about how I do not put 'level appropriate' encounters in the character's path. It's up to the players to determine what they can and can't take on, and if they don't retreat, the most likely option is going to be character death.

And that's exactly what happened in that session. I described the situation very clearly and plainly and they all KNEW beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they were out-matched and out-numbered and had no tactical advantage.

And yet... they charged forth anyway and got slaughtered. This pissed me off because my DM'ing style is that they choose where to go and I just put what I think should be there, in front of them, meaning they could've gone a thousand different directions and found something else to do. They could've easily backed away (they hadn't engaged, the enemy wasn't even aware of them at this point) and found an enemy they could take on. But no, you put a big, red button in front of a player, and they HAVE to push it, regardless of the fact that it has in big, bold letters, "YOU WILL DIE IF YOU PRESS THIS BUTTON!"

Based on the audio in the video, the only difference between Leeroy and the group was Leeroy got tired of waiting for the group to plan it's failure (I understand some alcohol was involved on all sides though. The party estimated a one on three chance of not getting wiped out in a fight they could bypass, but were still going to take on. That's the root tactical error. Leeroy comming back from the bathroom or whatever and charging in is completely secondary. The party was setting itself up for failure from the get go. The players you mention aren't Leeroy, they're the rest of the party.

 

[Mallus]

How do you say to someone, "Gee, umm, you suck at this don't you?" without actually coming out and saying that.

It requires graciousness. Probably more than I have . The trick is to offer advice without being insulting or pushy and being prepared to hear the other players decline your offer of help.

...but, rather, what happens when you've got half the group who wants to be Big Damn Heroes, and the other half wants to be tactical?

The best advice I can think of is for the DM: take a cue from superhero comics. Try designing fights where the each PC ends up squaring off against the "correct", properly challenging foe, more-or-less.

I realize this is easier to swallow when working in the superhero genre, but power-level disparities between D&D characters can approach or exceed what you find in your average issue of the X-Men, so I think it's applicable.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Honestly though Doug, the problem to me isn't who breaks first - the DM or the group, but, rather, what happens when you've got half the group who wants to be Big Damn Heroes, and the other half wants to be tactical?

Tricky one that, in my experience you gotta to find a way to turn the non tactical people into an asset.
I have gamed in that situaltion where most of the players were wargamers and some non wargamers and the non gamers want to just charge in and kill things.
Now, what we did was come up with very simple plans that were along the lines of we sneak in an pre position ourselves to take maximum advantage of the others just charging in. It does mean that the others wait a few rounds untill the rest of us get into position. They were willing to do that, but if they do not cooperate to that level then there is a real issue about playstyle conflict at work.

By the way, you cannot teach tactics to people that have no capacity to learn it. I have tried and failed. You can get them to do simple things but not anything complicated. So working around them is the only option.

 

[Umbran]

By the way, you cannot teach tactics to people that have no capacity to learn it. I have tried and failed.

Is lack of capacity, or lack of desire? The latter is probably far more common than the former. People typically have to want to learn something before they'll pay enough attention to learn it. The major barrier teachers face is not a student's difficulties grasping a subject, but with getting them to care enough to pay attention and do the work.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Is lack of capacity, or lack of desire? The latter is probably far more common than the former. People typically have to want to learn something before they'll pay enough attention to learn it. The major barrier teachers face is not a student's difficulties grasping a subject, but with getting them to care enough to pay attention and do the work.

Both, i agree that lack of desire is more common but over the years I have met about 4 people who were at best tactically naive and would not ever get any better (or at least did not while I was gaming with them)
This was monly with hex wargames but even when they played rpgs the issues came with them. Now in rpgs 3 of them could be instructed in simple roles as hammer or anvil and they would manage that the other was hopeless.