Let's Talk Player Tactics

[Asisreo]

While not all TTRPGs are combat-focused and not all have the exact same mechanics for combat or wars, there are usually tactics that are universal/system-agnostic which can be the difference between success or failure in a fight.

I would like to discuss such tactics. What are your favorite tactics? What do you think is an underrated tactical factor? What tactical decision saved your tail or nearly killed your character/unit? What do you consider bad tactics?

For me, my favorite types of tactics are disruption tactics, reducing the enemy's capabilities in some ways to make sure they're disorganized since I believe an organized force is far more deadly than a disorganized one.

I think an underrated tactic is ambush-type tactics. They're a bit hit-or-miss in TTRPGs, I imagine, because GMs would be able to metagame them from miles away and justify it with something most people wouldn't catch unless told to them by the players. However, I believe the ability to force an enemy to play on your party's turn from round 1 makes it so that the players can easily fight enemies of a higher weight class than the system may expect.

Bad tactics, to me, would be rushdown-type tactics. Not that overwhelming the enemy isn't a good thing, but not knowing your enemy's weaknesses or exploits means you could not only be ineffective, but you could also be walking into a place where the enemy has a tactical advantage, like being within a monster's counter-distance.

 

[John Dallman]

While not all TTRPGs are combat-focused and not all have the exact same mechanics for combat or wars, there are usually tactics that are universal/system-agnostic which can be the difference between success or failure in a fight.

I would like to discuss such tactics. What are your favorite tactics? What do you think is an underrated tactical factor? What tactical decision saved your tail or nearly killed your character/unit? What do you consider bad tactics?

You're discussing tactical approaches, rather than the fine details of tactics here.

The latter are often emergent properties of combat systems. For example, I've played a lot of OD&D and AD&D1e with homebrew initiative systems that operated by counting through the segments of a round, rather like RQ Strike Ranks or Hero System segments. Under those, there is considerable value in casting very quick spells, which was how our L3 and L4 magicians in one fight defeated an enemy L5 magician in the first round of a fight against an opposing party of NPC adventurers. He'd decided to be flashy and Fireball us; two sets of Magic Missiles hit while he was still casting.

For me, my favorite types of tactics are disruption tactics, reducing the enemy's capabilities in some ways to make sure they're disorganized since I believe an organized force is far more deadly than a disorganized one.

That's perfectly true for military forces that need centralised command to be mutually supporting. How does it work for player characters who are all taking their own decisions?

Or do you actually mean "Using your ranged attacks effectively to remove the enemy's ranged attacks early on, so that your ranged attacks can then switch to supporting hand-to-hand fighting?"

I think an underrated tactic is ambush-type tactics. They're a bit hit-or-miss in TTRPGs, I imagine, because GMs would be able to metagame them from miles away and justify it with something most people wouldn't catch unless told to them by the players. However, I believe the ability to force an enemy to play on your party's turn from round 1 makes it so that the players can easily fight enemies of a higher weight class than the system may expect.

I've generally played with GMs who could manage to run ambushes fairly. The problems I've seen have been more with players who wanted to look heroic by taking on too much, or could not stick to an ambush plan.

Bad tactics, to me, would be rushdown-type tactics. Not that overwhelming the enemy isn't a good thing, but not knowing your enemy's weaknesses or exploits means you could not only be ineffective, but you could also be walking into a place where the enemy has a tactical advantage, like being within a monster's counter-distance.

Overwhelming the enemy is fine, but my experience is that PCs are often outnumbered, That makes moves that allow you to locally outnumber part of the opposition, even if only briefly, very effective.

 

[Guest 7034872]

That's perfectly true for military forces that need centralised command to be mutually supporting. How does it work for player characters who are all taking their own decisions?

[...]

I've generally played with GMs who could manage to run ambushes fairly. The problems I've seen have been more with players who wanted to look heroic by taking on too much, or could not stick to an ambush plan.

If the players in my party form a plan for the characters all to go to Five Guys for burgers and fries, when they arrive at the parking lot at least two of them will completely break from the plan, inadvertently (but unapologetically) start a fight with some local Jain and Buddhists who were just passing through, and then end up burning the whole place down. They then will call their plan a success on the grounds they got away before the police arrived and the surveillance cameras all burned in the fire.

Wish I were making this up, but I'm just not.

 

[Asisreo]

You're discussing tactical approaches, rather than the fine details of tactics here.

Yeah. The minutia is dependent on the system and therefore cannot be universally portrayed as good or bad. But we can bring up any instance of specific tactics in specific TTRPGs if we want.

That's perfectly true for military forces that need centralised command to be mutually supporting. How does it work for player characters who are all taking their own decisions?

Or do you actually mean "Using your ranged attacks effectively to remove the enemy's ranged attacks early on, so that your ranged attacks can then switch to supporting hand-to-hand fighting?"

Well, it depends. That is a simplistic version. Another would be a hacker disrupting a machine-type enemy from the backlines or a wizard casting a debuff on the enemy.

Really, it's less the specifics and more the intention and effectiveness. Every form of attack is technically a disruption, but some are more effective at that than others. Targeting the most important enemy also counts.

 

[payn]

Identify the biggest threat and focus fire is usually a good go to tactic. Every one for themselves and just attacking whatever is nearest is usually bad.

 

[Ovinomancer]

1. Sun Tzu said: The art of war recognizes nine varieties of ground: (1) Dispersive ground; (2) facile ground; (3) contentious ground; (4) open ground; (5) ground of intersecting highways; (6) serious ground; (7) difficult ground; (8) hemmed-in ground; (9) desperate ground.

2. When a chieftain is fighting in his own territory, it is dispersive ground.

3. When he has penetrated into hostile territory, but to no great distance, it is facile ground.

4. Ground the possession of which imports great advantage to either side, is contentious ground.

5. Ground on which each side has liberty of movement is open ground.

6. Ground which forms the key to three contiguous states, so that he who occupies it first has most of the Empire at his command, is a ground of intersecting highways.

7. When an army has penetrated into the heart of a hostile country, leaving a number of fortified cities in its rear, it is serious ground.

8. Mountain forests, rugged steeps, marshes and fens--all country that is hard to traverse: this is difficult ground.

9. Ground which is reached through narrow gorges, and from which we can only retire by tortuous paths, so that a small number of the enemy would suffice to crush a large body of our men: this is hemmed in ground.

10. Ground on which we can only be saved from destruction by fighting without delay, is desperate ground.

11. On dispersive ground, therefore, fight not.

On facile ground, halt not. On contentious ground, attack not.

12. On open ground, do not try to block the enemy's way.

On the ground of intersecting highways, join hands with your allies.

13. On serious ground, gather in plunder.

In difficult ground, keep steadily on the march.

14. On hemmed-in ground, resort to stratagem.

On desperate ground, fight.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Generally the party splits into two two-man fireteams and the medic/healer trailing. Three teams when I'm running six PCs.

Standard one move, the other covers.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Identify the biggest threat and focus fire is usually a good go to tactic. Every one for themselves and just attacking whatever is nearest is usually bad.

This is absolutely true, and one of the things that can be a pain in genres where its not what you normally see happen, because its very hard to make it not the winning way.

The devil is in the question of what translates into "the biggest threat" though. As an example, people playing Fragged Empire have to usually learn that a group of Henchmen is actually more dangerous than a Nemesis, and also more brittle, so you really want to put them down first; this can be true with some other games with mook rules too.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Tactic: spend 3/4 of the session planning. Spend the first round of combat not following the plan.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Identify the biggest threat and focus fire is usually a good go to tactic. Every one for themselves and just attacking whatever is nearest is usually bad.

I agree, except when your target is too difficult to overcome (is difficult to hit or has too much health. ). In which case, it’s better to focus fire soft targets and take them out quickly so that they aren’t chipping away at the group. Once they are done, you use action economy and group tactics to take out the hardest target.