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 5:19:55 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. This is actually bollocks. By the same thinking, level one PCs should stay at home, content with their life as simple farmers. BBGs of course don't exist in the real world, so realism doesn't apply. But if we look at the real world for a moment, the closest analogies to BBGs were, none of them, taken down by a party of four to six plucky adventurers. It took the combined might of nations to defeat Hilter, Saddam Hussain etc. And of course generally, even those nations generally leave real-world BBGs to their own devices.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2016 5:58:58 GMT -8
The kind of GM who would use out of game knowledge to screw the pcs in a final encounter is also the same guy who has his one solution and won't let anything else work. Doesn't matter how logical you are, he is God and you lose unless you do what he had planned for you. If you can't trust your GM not to be that douchebag, then don't play with him.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jan 29, 2016 11:19:11 GMT -8
So let me get this right: 1) Someone posts a topic suggestion because, in their experience with their group, they've found it to be helpful ie: Tactics 2) In making the suggestion they have offered some points for consideration. ie: CONSTRUCTIVE critical discussion 3) They've suggested it because even Stu Venable has admitted it is a weakness of his. Not being good at something doesn't mean you can't discuss it, in fact not being good at something is precisely why anyone should discuss anything ie: by exploring our weaknesses we can work through it and learn to overcome them. If all we were willing to discuss is what we're good at then a) very short conversation b) one would just sound like a conceited arse 4) Several posters have jumped in and basically taken the opportunity to attack the OP by lording their preferred play styles and admonishing anyone who has a different approach ie: 'you're having fun the wrong way, how dare you' As my two pence worth in reply to each point as I understand the situation, as outlined above: 1) Good topic choice . . . it's been mentioned before as something to be considered, within other topics, but never addressed as a topic in it's own right 2) Slagging off the OP see point 3.B above 3) I think Stu Venable and the other hosts would bring valuable insight into this topic because, across all the hosts, they bring varying levels of skill and ability related to it. Stu Venable is not, self confessedly, a very strong tactician BUT many of the other hosts, again self confessedly, are. It would be interesting to explore this difference in play styles with a group that, on the whole, has experienced one anothers games on a (semi)regular basis. 4)See point 3.b above and cut the OP some slack for being brave enough, and thoughtful enough, to [dare to?] suggest a show topic. Aaron
|
|
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 29, 2016 13:19:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Jan 29, 2016 13:58:40 GMT -8
I like the idea of this topic.
Eldemy Spoilers ---
Highlight to read...
In the final session, they fought the big bad guy. It was an amorphous mass of undead bodies that could split up and act independently (and in concert).
My goal was to take out one character. I figured they'd win the fight, but losing a comrade would make for a bitter sweet ending. I couldn't pull it off. For one, I designed the monster to do too little damage. As the rate the party was cutting through it, I should have upped its damage. Secondly, it's difficult to kill PCs in 5E.
The other thing I didn't do (and didn't think about it until I read this thread) was to use its ability to divide to go after the ranged guy and the healer. That would have been very effective by distracting both Dave's and Bruce's characters and interrupting the flow of ranged DPS AND healing (though I don't know if anything would have counteracted Kimi's amazing rolling).
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on Jan 31, 2016 22:41:57 GMT -8
I like the idea of this topic. Have you played any wargames (Warhammer etc.) I think that way of thinking can be beneficial to RPG tactics. -And you are the right age, you just have to stop showering and get some suspenders.
|
|
|
Post by fabulous on Feb 1, 2016 23:31:57 GMT -8
I also think it's certainly a major consideration if your doing a one shot with people you don't know verses a table of folks you regularly play for. I mean, certain things you would never consider doing to a con table one shot for instance might be perfectly viable for a table of your regulars because have a general understanding of how tend to look at and resolve a particular roadblock. I don't have a ton of experience GM'ing, but I can tell you I've played with at least 2 GM's where aside from the setting it was always very clear how combats were going to go, it was very one dimensional and predictable. I think if you are a GM you should always be looking for ways to surprise your table if they are folks you play with on the regular basis. Change up your tactics to make them change up theirs. I absolutely agree it would be a neat topic to discuss. If anything this thread clearly shows that
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Feb 2, 2016 8:10:10 GMT -8
I'm not the world's best at tactics either, but I am slowly getting better. "The List" from D20 Radio was a huge help (thanks to daeglan for sending me there). I also read The Art of War, no joke.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on Feb 2, 2016 9:28:10 GMT -8
I'm not the world's best at tactics either, but I am slowly getting better. "The List" from D20 Radio was a huge help (thanks to daeglan for sending me there). I also read The Art of War, no joke. This is the rune attack order list: www.atlas-games.com/pdf_storage/rune_flowchart.pdfIt is a bit basic but a good start to making combat tactics better. Also despite what many here seems to think I don't think it is wrong to "punish" players making stupid decisions. If the PC attacks a full company of dwarven crossbow men head on, that player can only blame him/herself. BUT don't force the PC's to only have that option.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Roper on Feb 2, 2016 15:27:04 GMT -8
As Stu will attest, I am very good at tactics in games (both in running combats for him and as anyone who has listened to the Star Wars Traveller AP may tell you), and I'd be delighted to be on a podcast talking about how to use them. The first (and perhaps most important) thing you have to do is make sure everyone is on the same page about you as the GM using tactics. What I mean by that is you're going to run the NPCs as they would act and react. This could very well mean anything from them fleeing to ganging up on a single PC. If everyone is in agreement that they're fine with the outcome and that you agree it will better serve the story and world, have to!
|
|
|
Post by daeglan on Feb 8, 2016 4:22:54 GMT -8
I'm not the world's best at tactics either, but I am slowly getting better. "The List" from D20 Radio was a huge help (thanks to daeglan for sending me there). I also read The Art of War, no joke. Next for you to read is Book of Five Rings. Not the RPG but the tactics book
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 5:54:32 GMT -8
Tactics aren't anything secretive or special. You need two elements to use them. First is a goal. Second is a strategy to bring about your goal.
Let's say the PC's are spotted while a warrant is out for them by a city guard. What is his goal? Well, he is outnumbered by a superior force. He needs backup. What will his strategy be? Send up the alarm with his whistle. New goal, stay alive till help comes. Tactic? Fight defensively, position himself so he can be as easily surrounded, etc.
All this requires is getting into the head/motivations of a character and a tiny bit of rules knowledge. You can even jot a few notes for NPC's for their instincts or training.
Wolves. Goal: get food. Strategy: Use pack tactics to surround and seperate somone from the group. Use trip special attack on bite to make is easier for the pack.
Just keep that goal in mind. If the PC's start throwing beef jerky the wolves might give them a reprieve.
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Feb 8, 2016 14:45:21 GMT -8
Tactics aren't anything secretive or special. You need two elements to use them. First is a goal. Second is a strategy to bring about your goal. Part 2 is the one that's not obvious to a lot of people. Myself mostly included--as I said, I think I'm making progress, but I'm not a master by any means.
|
|
|
Post by weaselcreature on Feb 8, 2016 15:29:35 GMT -8
Tactics aren't anything secretive or special. You need two elements to use them. First is a goal. Second is a strategy to bring about your goal. Part 2 is the one that's not obvious to a lot of people. Myself mostly included--as I said, I think I'm making progress, but I'm not a master by any means. Yes...in the above example with the guard...that's just one guy. Not a difficult combat tactic to come up with. Running a single PC may be a little more complicated, especially at higher level, as more options open up. Running a group of NPCs gets even more complicated, as you contemplate synergies and who can do what to help where. There's also no reason a group of PCs that has been adventuring or training together couldn't have a conversation about combat tactics. There's then the complication of sterile wargame tactics vs people in battle. When I'm playing a wargame, I may not care about losses. I'll send that melee unit over there to jam up an opponent, knowing they'll probably die but hopefully buy me whatever it is I'm looking for. In an RPG, while a general may do that (if you're doing a large scale battle), most fights are with smaller groups and one should consider individual motivations and how a specific mook would feel about an action that is an obvious sacrifice. Some would be OK with it, others might flee. This is why it's a good idea to have an idea of NPC motivations, even for mooks. You need not go into detail with cannon fodder, but something like 1/3 of these guys would fight to the death, 1/3 will fight to surrender, 1/3 will run once a few die. You can then take those ideas down to the level of that lone city guard, and when backup arrives how things might go down.
|
|
|
Post by ironnikki on Feb 13, 2016 14:51:34 GMT -8
I'm way behind on HJ episodes, but chiming in to say that I too like this idea!
|
|