|
Post by uncommonman on Nov 16, 2015 10:33:53 GMT -8
TACTICS There needs to be a discussion about tactics on the show. www.tuckerskobolds.com/ is a great example of what tactics can add to a game and what a smrt gm can do to put some fear of death in to the players. The topic has been discussed previously but not in details or what to do. Most discussions has been about when monsters run away or what the goals of the opponents are but not how to make the opponent dangerous/smart or how to use proper tactics. You might like to talk with a wargamer, a "bad" gm or such. And look at the rune flowchart (use google I can't find a good link to post only a .PDF that won't link from my phone. I understand that many gm's want to make the fights interesting but it bugs me when I hear a actual play and for example no enemies attack the easily killable mage standing in the corner and dealing huge magic damage. Ps. And start killing a few PC's, to few players die from stupid decisions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2015 11:45:08 GMT -8
Tactics can definitely make a group of low level cannon fodder more challenging for a group of players but one must be careful not to cross over into the realm of GM fuckery. Tactics should make sense for the villain and the storyline. The players are only aware of their own actions and what they can divine of the Gm machinations through gameplay. The gm may have things happening in the background but should be careful about abusing the fact that they are privy to player plans as well. They may have someone tracking the PCs but if there is no logical reason that the tracker would discover their plans and know exactly where they are heading, they should not be able to run ahead undetected and set up an inescapable death trap resulting in a TPK. Metagaming is a sin not limited to PCs.
I've had GMs that do a fine job of dealing with Aggro in fair and logical way: Your character is large and stepped right into the middle of a mob? Damn right he is going to get swarmed. You just shot the leader from the corner with bow or spell? He is absolutely going to send folk after you. You said something derogatory about that Orc Cheiftan's momma? Prepare for a bullrush coming down your throat.
Playing antagonists as if they have actual motivations will help form tactics. What do they want? If its Bandits after gold, they may bolt after half their number have been slaughtered....but they may return for vengeance. Is an owl bear protecting its young? Prepare for a fight to the death.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on Nov 16, 2015 12:02:25 GMT -8
Most of these problem (gm knowing the players plans) si easily solved by preparation: if you make the BBG lair before the players enter (with guards etc.) it is the players fault if they die.
The gm should make a BBG lair hard, if not then he wouldn't still be alive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2015 19:12:19 GMT -8
This asumes a goal is tactical simulation. Not all games share this. John Wick's Blood & Honor is a good example of a game which openly does not focus on tactics. No stats for most weapons or armor, very loose combat rules, etc.
There is also the assumption that the players want to win. Also not always true. Again see Blood & Honor.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on Nov 17, 2015 6:36:22 GMT -8
My point about tactics is that the PC's opposition should use suitable tactics.
A group of kobolds might act stupid but a regiment of trained and experienced soldiers wouldn't stand in line waiting to attack.
Many GM's automatically have the enemy heavyweight focus on the party tank and let the strikers keep doing damage.
Tactics doesn't have to be good but it needs to be suitable for the NPC.
If the PC's try to sneak in to a fortress and fail (gets discovered) there would be some kind of safeguard set in place by the guards to handle that situation, a simple fight with rolled initiative is not right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2015 8:53:46 GMT -8
Having an effect in place and ready to go for failed intrusions or encounters is an excellent tactic to show the PCs that their actions carry weight is very suitable for most campaigns.
Back when I ran Spycraft, I had a set encounter with police ready to go if the Agents screwed up their stealth or brought attention to themselves. Depending on how much they screwed up, I would roll to determine how many rounds the group had to escape before police showed up. The police could be reskinned to suit other scenarios.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2015 15:01:07 GMT -8
uncommonmanAs the GM you have to be careful that your strategies are not tailored to the group unless the NPC's would and could do so. As a GM you have the privilege of knowing all about the players. If you punch them in the gut to much it gets old. In addition the problems you list aren't endemic to all GM's. Many pathfinder guides talk about the two hander as a good tank because he is a good mix of defense via his armor and aggro via his large damage. Unless you are playing a game with taunt mechanics ala 4E D&D, there is no expectation that the GM will only target the defensive minded characters. As a player wishing to be a target, many experienced players will adopt tactics to make themselves a nuisance that the NPC's can't ignore. A troll in the doorway with a shotgun is a hard thing to ignore to shoot the decker somewhere behind him. Shadowrun is an interesting game to explore in the tactical sense. The purpose of first contact security is not to win, but often to delay the runners. Often they accomplish this with the help of environmental controls. Kill the lights, lock all the doors, and try to lay down supressive fire. Interestingly, their goal can also be to track the runners. Ever had a heist too easy? Its all those micro RFID chips you are all covered in from head to toe. *cues up evil cackle*
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on Nov 17, 2015 20:56:26 GMT -8
Stevensw
Yes you have to be careful not to tailor your tactics for your group and that also applies to "kind" gamemasters.
If you hinder the badguys from doing what is natural for them (guards without crossbows) you are doing the PC's a disservice.
Of course you are not supposed to make an encounter impossible just to win but if the BBG knows the players are coming there is nothing wrong with being prepared for the PC's.
Give the players a warning if they don't understand that some things (frontal assault on a fortress) are a bad idea but if they keep insisting let the bad guys use the advantage.
If the players just rush in and take for granted that all encounters will be winnable no mather what I think they need a waje up call.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2015 21:54:22 GMT -8
Tactics varies by group and their goals/means. Town guards trying to keep out contraband focus on searching incoming caravans as that is what they have the man power to spare. Household guardsmen stand watch inside with melee weapons and man the walls with ranged weapons.
Your focus seems to be reacting to the players in a way that takes advantage of your strengths. This is not wrong as much as misguided. It would seem like a good idea to concentrate on the wizard throwing fiery death, but the common man would be scared shitless of that wizard. They have no idea what the extent of his abilities are. So while you as a GM know his AC is low and he doesn't have a lot of HP, the NPC's see him as Gandalf with his voice booming and thunder cracking while lightning drops from the sky.
A knowledgeable commander or advisor might be able to completely change the outcome by ordering his men into the breach against that wizard. If you ever want your players to feel a shift in battle and just plain dread, then let them have the advantage until the war hero commander shows up and completely changes the flow of battle. All of a sudden the NPC's coordinate and rally because they are more afraid of him than the PCs or are inspired by his presence. It also sets up an objective for them. Kill the commander to cause the enemy to fall into disarray.
Each opponent has its own goals and desires. Your goal is to make that come to life. A samurai looking for revenge might leave you crippled but alive as he takes your province and sells your daughters into servitude. When he is living in your house, eating your rice, and screwing your wife; only then will his revenge be complete. If you place more focus on your narration and making the combat come to life, your players will be happier. I've never heard a player complain, "stop telling me how awesome I am and make this harder. I'm just so bored of how cool I am."
Make your bad guy someone they love to hate. That is worth more than an advice on who to target or what spells they should use.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on Nov 18, 2015 13:05:45 GMT -8
I think you are missing my point.
I try to explain that there needs to be a show about how to make a enemy more credible and how to use tactics IF the enemies should do that.
I many rpg fights the badies only do a "basic melee attack" on the PC's that engage them.
Making players hate the BBG or winning the fights are not the point.
Yes it is a game and not all fight needs to be realistic but I think some GM's could do with some advice.
Look at the rune flowchart and D&D 4 special moves, both of them are an attempt to help GM to make the fights more dynamic and fun.
If all goblins charge the smallest pc (well known goblin tactics - almost as famous as Warhammer Scavens "lead from the back"), all wolves go for crippling leg attacks and demon goes for eyes the fights will be more fun for all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2015 14:37:00 GMT -8
The advice you are talking about is very genre specific. It also follows the advice of playing the enemies to their motivations. I think it would be a better show topic as a narrower question. What are the tactics of a tarasque? How can I make my caste assault more realistic? Etc. right now it is too broad to broach. You need that leaping off point.
|
|
|
Post by fabulous on Jan 27, 2016 5:53:05 GMT -8
I think this is more or less a GM Style thing. I've had plenty of GM's just go out of their way to TPK because "LOL" and I've had others who really watered down the encounter where we obviously were playing like idiots, but didn't really wanna kill anyone.
I think there has to be a balance. I don't think the GM's primary goal should ever be to "Kill People" It should really be a play of "Punishing Mistakes" in my honest opinion.
I think it's the duty of the GM to punish a player(s) mistakes for being out of position, or engaging an encounter that is clearly not optimal for success.
I also think you really have to gauge the table and base your tactics for the group. Some people just have a difficulty playing out an encounter in their head logically and just want to brute force everything. In that situation you have to decide to just role with their play style (if the rest of the table seems to be enjoying it) otherwise you have to knock them down a peg and show them "Hey, if you come at a mob 4v1 you will probably die" and hope they learn from their mistakes.
GM'ing seems to be such a juggling act, especially in an encounter, but there certainly isn't a one size fits all solution or plan of attack for Encounter Tactics I think the biggest variable is the skill set of the table, and play style. Ultimately though the threat needs to be felt, and mistakes have to be punished.
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Jan 27, 2016 7:06:09 GMT -8
Stu has said more than once that he's bad at tactics, so I'm not sure how he'd discuss the topic. Maybe bring on a guest who's good at it to offer tips?
|
|
mrmanowar
Apprentice Douchebag
Posts: 74
Preferred Game Systems: Ones that I own.
Currently Playing: AS&SoH, AD&D various editions and Manowar CD's
Currently Running: D&D 5E, AS&SoH (Started!)
Favorite Species of Monkey: The ones that rhyme with donkey
|
Post by mrmanowar on Jan 27, 2016 20:46:59 GMT -8
I uh, tried to bring this up in a way with different terminology and examples with my "Cleverness vs. Roleplaying" thread. Thanks for succinctly wording this better than I could have. Tactics does come into play because some people are better tacticians than they are social adepts. I like having both in a gaming group since it forces me to think outside the box and look at other resolutions to any puzzle, conflict, social interaction, etc. I also think it mirrors real life too. Some people behave one way, some do others. All the better to represent PC's and NPC's of any given game.
|
|
fredrix
Master Douchebag
Posts: 2,142
Preferred Game Systems: Fate, L5R, Pendragon, Gumshoe, Feng Shui
Currently Playing: Pendragon, Song of Ice and Fire, L5R, Feng Shui, Traveller
Currently Running: Fate, Coriolis, Nights Black Agents
Favorite Species of Monkey: 1970's NTV, dubbed by the BBC (though The Water Margin beats it)
|
Post by fredrix on Jan 28, 2016 5:11:27 GMT -8
Bah! If I want to play a game about tactics, I'll play a war game. Or failing that, X-Wing. In a ROLE-Playing game, I'm more interested in the moral decisions a character makes, around the fight. Not really in the tactical decisions in the fight. Also, not being a general, I have no idea about "realistic" tactics, only ha,e mechanic ones, and to be honest, I don't have the card-counter asbergers sort of brain that gives a toss about learning and testing mechanics tactics (that's why I hate CCGs). I like to get combat over quickly, and with as many cool things happening as possible.
For example, the last fight I ran, a PC set two enemy mooks alight. The big bad vampire picked up one mook in each hand, and charged into the room, tactically leaving himself open to attacks that might have killed him. Not a tactically correct decision to make, but it looked cool.
|
|