Player Tactics

[gizmo33]

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

IME it's player style, like Rel says.

In my current campaign the bulk of the players are focused on going up levels and getting magic items. The spend hours in email debating which feat their character should take next. My personal preference would be to run a game where the players spent hours debating the actions of my NPCs and what action they should take to influence the politics of the region. I used to have players that were interested in such things. Change is part of getting old I guess.

I handle the problem by focusing on the things the PCs like (that doesn't mean I make it easy). They like going to new cities and seeing what magic items are for sale. So I spend some effort to develop interesting markets, NPCs selling magic items, and scenarios revolving around those activities. It's not the kind of political game that I'd want to play, but someone has to comprimise and I pride myself on being a flexible DM.

If I set up some scenario where failure to be politically aware meant death, I'd just wind up with 5 dead characters thinking that they picked the wrong feats (as another poster has alluded to). It's classic old-school to think that killing PCs is a way to modify player behavior, but IME this is not recommended. If you agree that the problem is a difference in styles, then I think the possible solutions are fairly obvious.

 

[DrNilesCrane]

Ditto what Rel says.

One thing that might help is to get the group talking (both in and out of character) about tactics more frequently: i.e. what their characters can do alone and cooperatively. Also, in my group I found that asking players to read up on certain tactics (say, grappling or bull rushing) and then relating how they work to the group (maybe even with a short out of game demonstration) helps with getting everyone more comfortable with the mechanics. In game near the beginning of the campaign (just after 3.0 came out), we had a "county fair" adventure where the PCs got to try out a lot of the new tactics in-character and in a safe (non-lethal) environment.

 

[just__al]

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.

Actually, I enjoy having concrete rules for the things that my players have always been trying to do since basic D&D. Knocking people into a firepit, smashing an opponents bow, etc.. There are all rules now for those types of things. My house rules used to be about 15 pages long, now it's barely a page.

 

[Steverooo]

Another good idea is a "Team Competition" Contest, leading up to a group event... The "Team Competition" is a series of challenges, run for multiple teams, all in "safe mode", where the participants can't be harmed... Obstacles include crossing an open pit trap (easy to do, with a plank across the pit). Then, have the Judge state "Uh-oh! Suddenly, an unnoticed enemy leaps out at you!" while a man in padded armor, with a padded staff leaps out onto the plank... The pit is filled with old mattresses, but falling in eliminates the PC from the contest... Bullrushes will probably work, but the NPC Staffman will probably prefer Trip...

The various individual "Contests" can be anything you want (finding a trap, getting through a corridor "alive", crossing a chasm, whatever). RP a "Team" going through the events before the PCs, using good tactics. Then, after the PCs have "watched" the team ahead of them, to see what challenges they faced, let them try it, and use no tactics...

After the eliminations, the teams that scored best will then be invited, by the local Powers That Be, to go on a mission, for them... and they will be competing against the other winning teams!

 

[Odysseus]

The two things I'd try are first talking to the players outside the game about tactics. And second make sure they have time and oppertunity to talk tactics during combat.

My own experince with a same problem was with a party of four, 15th level characters., I was a shadow wizards, the rest of the party consisted of a paladin, rogue and cleric. When combat came along the wizard would keep away, didn't have the hit points to risk getting hit, and cast spells. The rogue lack hit points as well, so used hit and run tactics. While the paladin and cleric just stood there and fought. What happened was the paladin constantly died and gove ressurected, he went down levels twice as fast as the rest of the party went up.
The reasons behind this are . Thats the paladins perception of what a armoured warrior should be doing in combat is standing there and fighting, so thats what he was doing. However he didn't have the feats & magic items to fight this way. The clerics character build was more built to fight toe to toe, so he survived. The second problem was that as a group we're all fairly roleplay orientated. So we didn't discuss tactics during combat, or coordinate , because the characters can only say a few words per round. Which is what we role-played. Which put us at a disadvantage.

 

[Zappo]

Use tactics and special attacks against them. Bull rush them over a cliff, disarm the weapon specialist, grapple the wizard, flank them with tumbling rogues - they will learn sooner or later.

 

[focallength]

Do you use Mini's and terrain? sometimes its easier to visualize and use cover if you had physical representations. Even if you dont have a battle map and markers, use a table get some rocks and twigs and make your own terrain, and 1" equals 5'. Once you start showing the monsters using cover (moving the mini behind a rock) flanking, etc... they may start to get the idea. And maybe they just dont want to use alot of tactics, ask your players what they want to do if there happy dont go out of your way to "punish" them because they aren't good tacticians. But dont stop using tactics against them either. If you try too hard to bully them into playing your way, youll soon find yourself running the monsters and the pc's by yourself.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

After they lose, show them the monster stats. Show them the CR of the creature they faced. Nothing works better for cutting off those sorts of complaints than the players realizing that the guys who just kicked their behinds were a party of adventurers two levels lower than their own party average.

 

[Edgewood]

Do you use Mini's and terrain? sometimes its easier to visualize and use cover if you had physical representations. Even if you dont have a battle map and markers, use a table get some rocks and twigs and make your own terrain, and 1" equals 5'. Once you start showing the monsters using cover (moving the mini behind a rock) flanking, etc... they may start to get the idea. And maybe they just dont want to use alot of tactics, ask your players what they want to do if there happy dont go out of your way to "punish" them because they aren't good tacticians. But dont stop using tactics against them either. If you try too hard to bully them into playing your way, youll soon find yourself running the monsters and the pc's by yourself.

I actually produce my own line of miniature terrain locally in Nova Scotia. I have made houses, woods, fountains, statues, barns, windmills, towers, wallls, etc. from scratch. I started making them for Warhammer but have now been using them for the combats in D&D. They guys say that the visualization of the setting is so much better with the scenery that I make. If anyone wants to see these pieces, I'll take some photos and show them around. I have actually been commissioned to make a whole castle for a local guy. He wants to use it for his warhammer games.
Anyway, yes I do use miniatures in combat along with scenery. I think what the problem could be is that they simply aren't tactically minded (despite one of them being in the military). Speaking with the group has been done both in and out of character. I do like the idea of showing them the CR of the npc/creature that kicked their buttocks and I think it may force the issue with some of them. Then again, it may be that it is just their style of play.

 

[Timeboxer]

After they lose, show them the monster stats. Show them the CR of the creature they faced. Nothing works better for cutting off those sorts of complaints than the players realizing that the guys who just kicked their behinds were a party of adventurers two levels lower than their own party average.

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