Tactical arguments and how to avoid them

[sniffles]

One of my least favorite parts of roleplaying is the arguments about tactics. I'm hopeless at tactics myself; I can never think of any useful suggestions. If two or three people suggest different options, all options sound equally viable to me (usually). Our group typically doesn't have a party leader, so there's no one to defer to for a decision.

Such discussions in my group always seems to devolve into arguments - not really heated ones, but enough that it's uncomfortable to be there sometimes. Our GMs give suggestions and advice, but ultimately it's up to the players to decide what to do.

Does anyone have any ideas how to get around this problem? I'm probably not going to become a tactical genius anytime in the near future, and I'm a player, not a GM. How do other groups keep arguments about tactics from bogging down the game?

 

[iwatt]

How do other groups keep arguments about tactics from bogging down the game?

Half-orc Barbarian
Str 20 Con18 Wis 6 Int 6

"Charge"

 

[Rackhir]

Shilsen the DM usually just puts his foot down after a few seconds, saying "You don't have enought time to discuss this in combat".

You might want to consider sitting down with some of your more tactically minded players ahead of time and working out some tactics for you to use. Or discussing them in email, so as not to tip off the DM.

 

[takasi]

Roll at the beginning of a session (or every hour or whatever) for table (not party) leader. If you're going to let players metagame and talk tactics (and there's nothing wrong with focusing on the wargaming side of D&D) then this will give you someone to defer to if there's problems. You need to make this a part of your table contract though, and everyone must agree to defer to the leader regardless of the decision.

You can also let players do whatever they want, but if you don't have (or want) the game time for arguments then this is a simple fix.

Rackhir, that's a popular option for combat decisions. There are also other tactics outside of combat that players/characters debate (common decisions include when and where to camp, which direction to travel and whether to kill or capture enemies).

 

[The_Gneech]

Come up with a few "standard approaches" (hit hard and fast once, then flee; put a weak-looking party member into a position of weakness then have the tough members close in on enemies that approach; everybody cluster back-to-back and let fly with all ranged attacks) and give 'em cool-sounding code names ("Panther strike!" "Shadow feint!" "Death blossom!") Explain the approaches to the other players and get them to go along. Maybe have the characters practice the different approaches during downtime.

In combat, when an approach seems warranted, call for its use.

Congratulations! You're now the party leader. You go!

-The Gneech

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I find problems develop if the PCs have a lot of time before the upcoming battle. (They think the BBEG is going to be at this location, and they'll attack tonight, which means that, in-game, they might have hours to discuss tactics. The players are smart enough to come up with good tactics, but they always conflict. Some players are much more cautious than others, too.)

 

[adwyn]

As has been said there isn't enough time during combat for PCs to do more than yell "Get the big guy!" and the DM should be enforcing it.

Out of combat, much time can be spent by players trying to sway you the person, not your character, to agree with them. If this is uncomfortable or time consuming just have the various sides make an opposed diplomacy check and go with the higher. That'll teach the wargamers to use Charisma as a dump stat.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I like opposed Diplomacy checks as well if things are getting bogged down.

I've seen such crazy and circles within circles plans come up in game for the most mundane of things, and it can drive everyone crazy. I remember one session the PCs spent at least 30 minutes drawing up plans on assaulting a single appartment where a guy was being kept prisoner and by the 2nd round of the actual assault because of some well placed dispel magics, their plan was completely useless. Happens all the time.

 

[sniffles]

As has been said there isn't enough time during combat for PCs to do more than yell "Get the big guy!" and the DM should be enforcing it.

Out of combat, much time can be spent by players trying to sway you the person, not your character, to agree with them. If this is uncomfortable or time consuming just have the various sides make an opposed diplomacy check and go with the higher. That'll teach the wargamers to use Charisma as a dump stat.

I wonder how this would go over with the group. You're right, it's usually the players trying to sway each other, not the characters. I might suggest this to see if we can get around the interminable discussions. Things could end up with quite a different conclusion if we rely on our characters to make these decisions!

 

[Jubilee]

I'm also in the game in question sniffles is talking about. I don't think that such tactical discussions ever come up during combat; except for us continually suggesting to one particular player to occasionally move his character into a flanking position (doesn't matter which character he's playing, either - he's impossible! He rarely even flanks with his rogue character, grr ).

The problem usually comes up when we have (in game) time to plan an assault or like the time we had to figure out how to flush out an enemy and force him to reveal hismself as the bad guy. Personally, I only keep half my mind on such conversations, only snapping to attention when or if something seems particularly outrageous to my (paladin) character.

Unfortunately, if we go with the diplomacy check, I think my character has the highest diplomacy before rolling, and I don't think people really want me planning our tactics.