Tactical Gaming and Character Building to complicated in D&D?

[Mark CMG]

Their other problem is tactical movement. They are so afriad of AOO, most of them do not move at all... (Allthough an AOO and one charge from a hydra is better than a 6 head full attack.)

You could make squares of colored paper that indicate the reach area of a figure and let players know that if they move more than one square within that area they might be subject to an AoO.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Start from the bottom and work your way up. The EL-system is still a yardstick even if your players suck at tactics. Start with EL 1:s and when you reach a level where you think you can (with some luck) actually win - stay there. If they are worth EL 4 bring them EL 4s.

 

[Obergnom]

You could make squares of colored paper that indicate the reach area of a figure and let players know that if they move more than one square within that area they might be subject to an AoO.

My players know when they would get an aoo, but to them, those are like the worst thing that can happen. They do not see that there are situations where it is better to provoke an aoo than to hold your ground.

 

[Mark CMG]

My players know when they would get an aoo, but to them, those are like the worst thing that can happen. They do not see that there are situations where it is better to provoke an aoo than to hold your ground.

Have they lost a few characters to AoOs or are they just shy about losing any hp at all?

 

[pawsplay]

lol, actually, I own and like that system. (Used it for 2 one shots) My players do not like not having unlimited building options. (Allthough they do not use those... oh well...)

Freedom is a two-edged sword.

There is only so far system can go toward making a gang of players into "adventurers" who have the sense of a drunk mule.

 

[Obergnom]

Hmm,

I can't remember "Death through AOO".

I really do not know where that came from. But, yep, some of them are really afraid of being hurt. (The Rangers player particularly, he prefers to play ranged combatants)

That was allready that way when I joined the group.

 

[jmucchiello]

I can't remember "Death through AOO".

I really do not know where that came from. But, yep, some of them are really afraid of being hurt. (The Rangers player particularly, he prefers to play ranged combatants)

So attack them with a group of spring attacking rogues. Show them that large amount of movement on the battle field can work to your advantage.

 

[S'mon]

lol, actually, I own and like that system. (Used it for 2 one shots) My players do not like not having unlimited building options. (Allthough they do not use those... oh well...)

That's hilarious - they like having options, which they don't use, so they get killed, so they complain!

I agree that C&C seems a better system for this group - damage spells are uncapped, less tactical savvy is required, and PCs are much stronger vs monsters at higher levels. You can try tweaking 3e to favour their style, but it's a slog. Another possibility to keep the lots of options would be a lower magic d20 ruleset like Conan or maybe Grim Tales. I like Conan best myself.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I really think my players would prefer a game where their tactic is a good way of winning.

Their tactic consists of pumping damage points into enemies at ever-escalating rates, right?

You might want to give Iron Heroes a whirl. The counter system really lets people do other things with their combat round and be directly rewarded for it. Aside from just educating them on what to do (such as perhaps by introducing a tactical NPC who can act as your voice in the campaign), IH actually encourages characters to do it by feeding directly into their arse-kickery abilities.

 

[Obergnom]

So attack them with a group of spring attacking rogues. Show them that large amount of movement on the battle field can work to your advantage.

Well, using a Whirlwind Attacking giant (spring attack being a prereq) kind of showed that, but I plan to do exactly that once they encounter the drow.
Still, I guess it will give them more of the "DM showing off what the system can do but still useless for players" feeling... they allways assume that the NPCs tactics work because they now the conditions... they do not understand that they could shape a battle instead of just reacting to what the monsters do, if they would have the necessary options.

Considering different systems. I really think C&C would suit them, but the best C&C sessions (A 4 Evenings run through Monte Cooks The Harrowing from Dungeon Mag) was with my old group, a bunch of very able gamers I can no longer play with regularly. The problem with C&C is, that it gives the less creative players no "buttons" to dictate what they can do. Sadly, thats the gaming style of some of my current players.

Iron Heroes is a great system, I have got it (as a pdf though), I allways though it would be much to complicated to try with my current group, maybe I am wrong.

I do not know Conan and Grim Tales. I'll try to find something out about those systems. If we would change system though, it would need to be something compatible to D&D, as I and my players really like our current campaign. Maybe going for easier encounters and giving more than enough treasure is a better solution.
And trying to avoid complex monsters, though that seems pretty hard at higher levels. Most of them have interesting and dangerous abilities. The high level brutes on the other hand, are just scary if you consider sending them against a group not using will/refl save or loose spells. (A mountain troll once nearly whiped out a party of five 7-9th level characters in this round.)