Player Tactics

[Storm Raven]

But in the end, the last thing I want my rpg to turn into is another #^$%@#* miniatures game. That's why I got into rpgs -- to get away from miniatures battles. Too many arguments over "line of sight" and "morale checks" for my tastes...

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

 

[MoonZar]

My gaming group consists of 5 players. Most of which are 1st generation players (meaning 1st edition) and one 3rd generation player. Yet despite all of the experience these guys have, they seem to lack any idea of tactics in combat. All too often they become static, don't move around, don't utilize their feats, and hardly ever use other combat options like bull rushing, disarming and (the gods forbid) grappling. I have gone over tactics with the group before yet it just doesn't seem to sink in. They need to use cover, and the space that is around them.

I use the monsters to the extent of their abilities. I use their abilities to rake, grapple, bull rush, bite, and to exploit their weaknesses. The more intelligent the monster I am player, the more likely it'll go after the lightly armoured, or the most dangerous. Does anyone else have this problem? I have used my gameplay as an example, I have spoken with the group directly, and I have gone as far as forwarding discussions of combat rules that appear on the D&D website, and from threads on EN world.

How do you handle this problem? If it exists in your group I mean.

Greetings,

I have a suggestion. Killing PC usually don't make them understand, they will just think that the monster was too much powerful for them and tell the DM that he was overkiller

You should make a group of well organise NPC of the same level of the PC. Make them encounter the PC group, defeat them with a brillant strategy. Then don't kill them, make sure they don't die and capture them.

The NPC who are not evil will simply taunt them and humiliating them. You could make the NPC leader say something like this :

Npc : " mouahahahah bunch of weakling you fall to my superiour strategy and intelligence "

After they have been very humiliating and you're finish with them, make them be rescue by another group of well organise good NPC.

Make them speak with the rescuer, and maybe the NPC could teach them some tactic.

The point of all this is to try to make the group of PC understand something...

 

[Wombat]

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

Sorry, those were things in previous wargames that I had to contend with; they remain bugbears of my mind.

No, they are not in 3.X, true, but the rules tend to be a bit too miniatures-centric to my mind, so I've done a lot to strip those acpects away and make the game more like games I prefer -- get rid of AoOs, for exmaple, and some of the other combat overcomplications.

This is a personal thing. I'm in therapy over it.

 

[TheGemini]

Greetings,

I have a suggestion. Killing PC usually don't make them understand, they will just think that the monster was too much powerful for them and tell the DM that he was overkiller

You should make a group of well organise NPC of the same level of the PC. Make them encounter the PC group, defeat them with a brillant strategy. Then don't kill them, make sure they don't die and capture them.
<SNIP>

This is a very insightful post.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Many of the neat tactical maneuvers cause an AOO. Only with a feat (or reach) can you avoid the AOO, and feats are few and far between unless you're a fighter. What the players need to realize that sometimes these things are worth an AOO. So, my suggestion is that when you have your equally-matched NPCs using these innovative tactics, the NPCs aren't necessarily optimized for them.

For example, an NPC fighter might well decide to bull rush one of the two PC rogues who is flanking his buddy - the minor damage from a rogue's AOO is easily worth the benefit of stopping two sneak attacks.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

Depends really... I've had some similar problems in the past, but nothing quite as bad as yours by the sound of it. Some of them don't particularly like using lots of combat moves, but they tend not to play fighter types. Nobody likes grappling much - they consider it too time consuming, too lethal* and not much fun.
(* = hangover from 3.0 ed where I made some bad and rather embarrasing DM calls. )

I found printing out the combat actions onto cards helped a lot with my group. Passed them around the players... They could read them while waiting for their turn and didn't have to hack through a rulebook to find them. Increased use a lot. Firey Dragon do something called the Battlebox - with all that stuff in. Been meaning to pick one up for a while - just because it'll look prettier than my printouts.

Put in situations where some tactics are really useful. IME, different environments normally bring out the best in the players. Put stuff that makes bullrushes look sensible - large drops, giant spinning cogs and the like. Annoying guy with a whip might encourage a disarm or sunder. And so on.

Or...

Put away the battlemap. Run descriptive, less tactical combat. Possibly use a loose sketch map. Give benefit of the doubt on attacks of opportunity, spell areas and so on. I find it really good fun running stuff like that sometimes, but tastes do vary.

 

[Edgewood]

One way that I have attempted to get the group to think about tactics was to add to the initiative rules and the result actually showed them using more tactics. Here's what I did. Also, keep in mind that I did this only in the last game session we had so opinions on this are welcome.

Step 1: Roll initiative.

Step 2: From lowest to highest, everyone declares their actions. This has the effect of benefitting those who rolled higher. Anyone who rolled lower announces their actions first, allowing those with a higher intitiative count to better respond . It's almost like you have anticipated your enemies action.

Step 3: Once all of the announcements are made, actions are resolved from highest to lowest inititaive order.

I found that when the PC's rolled high against an NPC or monster, they would adjust their actions based on what action I would declare. It actually forced one of the players to think of using a tactic which enabled them to gain the upper hand against their foe.

Now this optional rule I tried does slow combat down a bit, but it really gets them thinking about their actions. I may use this as an ongoing house rule, I'm not quite sure yet, but the players said they really liked it.

What do you all think? By the way, I know there are some holes in this optional rule, but they seem to be small ones. I can get into them in another thread.

 

[Timeboxer]

I have a suggestion. Killing PC usually don't make them understand, they will just think that the monster was too much powerful for them and tell the DM that he was overkiller

I have to admit that this is true. I've been in encounters where the GM was like, "Wow, this thing is way too powerful," when I just didn't see appropriate tactics being used by the the party. Admittedly, I have been in groups where the other players thought that polymorph and summon monster are "munchkin-y," so perhaps this is non-standard.

But, suggestions.

OOC: Pass out a quick reference sheet of all of their combat options (e.g., bull rush, trip, grapple, etc.). Hopefully they'll get the hint.

IC: Have an NPC, or several NPCs, chide your party on their tactics, and offer to teach them to be more effective.

 

[Dagger75]

The group I am in like 4 Gen Pattons. Are tactics are stuff books are written about. The fients, flanking an all out charges could be used today.

Then I realized I was looking at the wrong figs. We are actually like Mr Maggoo merged with the 3 stooges.

 

[Rel]

If you haven't already, I'd suggest that you read Robin Laws' Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering. It was really an eye opener for me about the way that I derived enjoyment from the game and the way that my players derived enjoyment from the game and how those were often very different.

See, I'm a Tactician too. I derive great pleasure from planning things, taking into account the strengths and weaknesses of my character and the group and making the optimal tactical choices based on that assessment. The problem is that, for the longest time, I assumed that my players loved that kind of stuff too. But they really just don't. My players include:

A Storyteller
A Specialist
A Butt Kicker
A Powergamer
and a couple of Casual Gamers

There's not a Tactician in the bunch!

Now it is important that I have fun too so I still have the bad guys play as smart as they should and make use of the tactics and resources that make sense for them. But I dialed down the raw power of the baddies I used because it wasn't necessary to make the game challenging. And I also make absolutely sure that the sorts of things that my players derive pleasure from make regular appearances in the game too.

I used to include these things before I read the book. But I was doing it accidentally and erratically because I did not have a codified system of thinking about the sorts of things my players enjoyed. But after reading Mr. Laws' book and understanding the kinds of players I've got, I'm able to actively include the precise sorts of things that make the game fun for them.

I really can't recommend it strongly enough.