Player Tactics

[Eluvan]

I had a similar problem myself a while back. The group I was playing with just refused to use tactical manoeuvres in combat. Not just that - they had no clue what a tactical manoeuvre was, for all that I tried repeatedly to explain it to them. In fact they really just showed very little interest in the rules at all. Character creation was always something of a nightmare. I remember one particularly tortuous incident when a guy decided to play a bard and then took perform ranks only in the violin. I mentioned that this meant he wouldn't be able to maintain a bard song whilst still being able to attack and so on... and it took me about an hour to convince him of this, despite having the rules books right in front of him. And then the time one of the players tried to make a sorceror... "what are good spells then?"

"Umm... there are lots of good spells. You should really pick for yourself."

"Oh alright, I'll... holy crap, there can't be that many spells! Just pick some for me, pleeeease!"

... and so on. Even when hed eventually picked some spells, he had no idea what they did. He kept stopping and asking me what spell he should be using.

Now maybe this wouldn't have been so bad if it had diminished as they got more experienced... but nope, it just intensified. I tried all sorts of things to try to drill the rules into their heads at least a little bit, but nothing worked. Eventually I pretty much gave up, and we came to a compromise whereby I handled most of the mechanical aspects for them. It annoyed me at first, but eventually I came round to it. They liked the feel of D&D, but weren't interested in the crunchy bits... that's fair enough, really. In the end we had a good game, and that's what matters right?

So I guess maybe what I'm saying is... has it occurred to you that maybe it doesn't matter that much if your players don't like tactical combat? Just don't give it to them. It's a hallmark of a good DM, in my opinion, to be able to cater to his players' tastes.

 

[Edgewood]

So I guess maybe what I'm saying is... has it occurred to you that maybe it doesn't matter that much if your players don't like tactical combat? Just don't give it to them. It's a hallmark of a good DM, in my opinion, to be able to cater to his players' tastes.

I don't think it's the fact that I'm not aware of what they want to play. It's more along the lines of :

player: You know what DM? I really like combat. I like it so much that I will talk about my character's abilities in combat and how much death he can dish out.
DM: Okay, well your character has just come across a Large Awakened Dire Ape which hurls a large stone at you, nearly missing you by inches. what do you do?
player: I stand still, draw my sword and try to stab it.

etc...etc. Basically what it comes down to at times is that they talk the talk but are just crawling when it comes to walking.

 

[Rel]

player: You know what DM? I really like combat. I like it so much that I will talk about my character's abilities in combat and how much death he can dish out.
DM: Okay, well your character has just come across a Large Awakened Dire Ape which hurls a large stone at you, nearly missing you by inches. what do you do?
player: I stand still, draw my sword and try to stab it.

Do they strive to obtain feats, spells and magic items that make them really good at drawing their sword and stabbing? If so then this seems to be classic "Powergamer" (and I don't use that term as an insult) technique. It would indicate that they really enjoy the part where the big fat number appears on the character sheet and the part where hordes of bad guys die on the sword but still don't know diddly about tactics.

 

[Edgewood]

Do they strive to obtain feats, spells and magic items that make them really good at drawing their sword and stabbing? If so then this seems to be classic "Powergamer" (and I don't use that term as an insult) technique. It would indicate that they really enjoy the part where the big fat number appears on the character sheet and the part where hordes of bad guys die on the sword but still don't know diddly about tactics.

I think you hit the nail on the head Rel. They do love the fact that their scores are high. They love the fact that they can dish out quite a bit of damage and I know for a fact that nothing thrills them more than causing so much damage in 1 round that it would kill 10 commoners. Of course I should also mention that they are good roleplayers. When we play downtime, they character interraction is top notch. There have been sessions where is almost seemed like it was scripted. They really do get into it. They just seem to run out of steam when it comes to coming up with and dictating their actions. I think part of the problem too is that when one visualizes a fight, all actions are simultaneous. I was watching Return of the King today and took special notice of the combat actions that were displayed on screen. With the turn based system that all RPGs have, it is neaqr impossible to replicate that feel of fluid motion. I think that they may visualize combat like we see in a movie, only to have to translate it into game terms. It has been dicussed amongst ourselves before.

 

[Rel]

I think you hit the nail on the head Rel. They do love the fact that their scores are high. They love the fact that they can dish out quite a bit of damage and I know for a fact that nothing thrills them more than causing so much damage in 1 round that it would kill 10 commoners.

Since, as you mention, they are also good Roleplayers, then I think your problem is not that big a problem. Simply let them wade in and swing the swords at the bad guys. Don't worry too much about whether they employ tactics or not.

Now the potential downside of this is that the combats could become stale and boring if the PC's just stand toe to toe with bad guys who also stand there and they whack each other until somebody dies. One way to prevent this is to have the bad guys be diverse and interesting. Instead of a bunch of Ogres send an Ogre riding a Giant Lizard and a pair of Harpies throwing javelins.

The other way to prevent it is to have the combats take place in exciting and unusual terrain. A series of ledges on a cliffside or a steep-sided pyramid add tactical challenges that the PC's can't help but address. Bad guys on flying mounts forces the PC's to use ranged attacks once in a while.

I'm sure you get the picture. My point is that you can have fun with the tactics even if the players don't. And you can challenge the PC's with relatively low CR critters because of the tactics you use. If that results in slightly lower XP for the PC's then they can either live with it or make it up in good roleplaying XP.

Don't penalize them for it. Just work with it.

 

[Corinth]

I say that it's better to keep smacking them with superior tactics, superior strategy, and superior logistics (when plausible) whenever possible during play and then explaining their failures afterwards. Sooner or later, they'll get it and start playing smart- just as their characters would if this were real. Poor tactics, etc., are bad role-playing when talking about adventurers that do this stuff as a profession.

 

[Odysseus]

I think hitting them with low CR monsters, using good tactics , and telling them how low the CR is, is a good idea.
If they talk so much, have you tried converting their descriptions into tactics. For example
Player, I charge forward, swinging my sword to deliver a mighty blow that sends the creature flying.
DM, right does that mean your trying bullrush or power attack?
I don't think you've got a big problem. I'd try and work with what their doing.

 

[Storm Raven]

Which will then result in choruses of, "That CR is really obviously miscalculated!" and "Wow, that monster is so broken!"

That's why you use a party of adventurers as the opponent, preferably about two levels lower than the party average. The closer the rival party is in structure to the PC party the better. Create a party that is close to being a mirror image of the PC party, reduce their levels by two, and then beat them with the resulting crew of characters.

It's hard for a party of a dwarven fighter 5, elven wizard 5, human cleric 5, and halfling rogue 5 to complain that a party consisting of a human fighter 3, dwarven cleric 3, elven rogue 3, and halfling wizard 3 has their CR "obviously miscacluated" and "broken".

 

[diaglo]

That's odd that this should be a problem, since 3e/3.5e doesn't have either morale checks or line of sight.

iirc, spell casting has line of effect. which is basically line of sight.


i've got no problems with tactics being included.

diaglo "i came to OD&D from wargames" Ooi