Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2016 0:51:57 GMT -8
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. Depending on the game you may not want to go the ultra effective tactics route for a group of npcs. You can end up with a situation where you are playing rocket tag with your players and the npcs are effectively a hive mind. Some of this could go down to training, but then you still need to square killing PC's or invalidating any contributions they might have made. Player fun is higher on my list of things to achieve than realism or difficulty. Unless your players are having it so easy that it is detracting from the game, you shouldn't be trying to dial it to 11. It's often more than enough to have a simple tactic in mind as that puts you in the mind of the NPC for a moment. That helps keep the scene immersive and brings life to the npcs. Before discussing how to better curb stomp your PC's, I'd ask why you feel that is needed in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Feb 14, 2016 7:28:02 GMT -8
Because, to paraphrase John Wick, "Your players want you to."
"The first step to becoming a Dirty GM involves a little syndrome I call “The Die Hard Effect.” (I’ve talked about this before in other places, so I’ll keep it brief.) Essentially, all players want their characters to be John McClane. You know, the guy Bruce Willis plays in the Die Hard films. They want to be knocked down, punched out, bloody, battered and beaten. But (and this is an important “but”, folks), every time they get knocked down, they want to be able to get back up."
|
|
|
Post by weaselcreature on Feb 14, 2016 10:13:20 GMT -8
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. Depending on the game you may not want to go the ultra effective tactics route for a group of npcs. You can end up with a situation where you are playing rocket tag with your players and the npcs are effectively a hive mind. Some of this could go down to training, but then you still need to square killing PC's or invalidating any contributions they might have made. Player fun is higher on my list of things to achieve than realism or difficulty. Unless your players are having it so easy that it is detracting from the game, you shouldn't be trying to dial it to 11. It's often more than enough to have a simple tactic in mind as that puts you in the mind of the NPC for a moment. That helps keep the scene immersive and brings life to the npcs. Before discussing how to better curb stomp your PC's, I'd ask why you feel that is needed in the first place. I wasn't suggesting a GM do this to better curb stomp the party. It was making the opposition a little more realistic, which includes things like surrendering and fleeing. Also, if an enemy fighting force fights better, one can make a fight challenging with less NPCs, instead of increasing a challenge by just adding enemies.
|
|
mrcj
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 173
|
Post by mrcj on Mar 4, 2016 21:58:26 GMT -8
Tactics is important. Some of my best tactical games as a GM involve the players trying to fight an enemy on the enemy's terms. This takes some planning.
I love the kobolds. Individually pretty dumb, but able to follow orders of a cleverer leader I have severely damaged even killed significantly higher level player characters by feinting an attack, never engaging, then loosing the trap and filling the air with missile weapons then running again. My players figured out that if they want to attack the kobolds (and many other types of intelligent monsters) get them out of their lair first.
Problem is talk of tactics gets kind of game boardy pretty quick and how enemies will use terrain to their benefit.
|
|
mrcj
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 173
|
Post by mrcj on Mar 5, 2016 6:23:12 GMT -8
I was thinking about it and if this was a topic this is my top five tactical suggestions for GMs to make fighting weaker opponents more difficult. I'm a GURPS GM primarily but I think most of this stuff should translate to other systems.
1. How do the tactics affect the overall strategy. For instance if the game is taking you to the kobold lair what is the overall strategy for the kobolds: protect the lair at all cost? Protect a valuable NPCs like a king or shaman or item or women and children, or other. What that overall strategy is should affect the tactics the NPCs use. Particularly with an opponent like kobolds where you may have 20 or 30 or more adult male fighters and perhaps 50 women and children, the GM will need to keep good notes.
2. Once the overall strategy is set figure out how clever is the NPC general, is this guy Hannibal or Rommel is he George W Bush. This should also inform how the NPCs fight. Maybe the Hannibal general has a tactic that lures the characters into a location that allows the NPCs to use a overwhelming agent like an elephant or magical item. Maybe the Rommel style general is more mobile, doesn't want to get pinned down fighting the PCs so his kobolds keep breaking and running and reforming somewhere else. Maybe the GW Bush general inspires his people to fight bravely but sends them against the wrong target.
3. Terrain. If you are going to use tactics the NPC should use the terrain to their advantage. This takes game prep on the GM side. And it is funny to say I have the higher ground, but in game terms PC's will move up a slope slower than a flat surface, NPCs will have greater range and occasionally a log rolls down the slope and squishes the PCs. If you are underground, there may be ways to attack the PCs from different directions then escape. Example: the classic you round the corner three kobolds at the end of the hall shoot with small bows. The PCs run forward, the GM is completely justified by giving the PCs a huge negative to avoid the pit trap. A lot of times GMs see traps as static but if you are weaker they are the great equalizer. Watch Conan the Barbarian where Schwertzenegger has to fight in the graveyard for how to use traps to equalize an unbalanced encounter.
4. Do not engage the PCs until it is advantageous for the NPCs to do so. Lets face it, any decent fighter should turn any single kobald into guacamole, maybe in one shot. NPCs should use the terrain to escape from PCs and only let the PCs into swinging distance when it is advantageous to do so. Example the PCs are in a corridor, perhaps a little banged up. The corridor is wide enough for two people. There are a bunch of kobolds in the hall. The first two are carrying big shields and short swords and block the hall (these guys both will probably all-out defense), behind them are six more kobolds with spears (gripped for two hex range to hit the PCs standing in front of the shieldmen, if they can get away with it they will all-out attack). Once the PCs are engaged four bowman should show up behind the PCs to pick off any lightly armored PC at the back of the party. Spearmen and bowmen may attack a single PC to burn through their parry and block and force them to dodge. Once one the shieldmen dies, all the spearmen run to their escape plan to set up their next attack. The bowmen too should run if approached and maybe lead pursuers into a different trap. This kind of stuff needs to be planned so the GM isn't just acting like a dick.
5. Split the party. Use terrain and traps to separate the party members from each other. Once alone or without support, those PCs better run or they could end up dead.
One last GURPS specific thought. Called shots are part of my tactics. If the PCs are not using them I generally don't. If they do, then you bet the NPSs will. The idea here is for the PC to use his best defense up then have to defend an aimed shot against the vitals or head or eye slits. Be careful though, I have had a kobold bowman one-shot the party a wizard going for the head. Oops.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2016 1:17:06 GMT -8
Traps can be very boring. When used wrong they are a major 'gotcha' tactic. That is to say there is no decision made that decides if the PC runs into a trap. Because the player didn't say something specific, something they could not have expected happens to them. Similar to a game with no active defense options, they are at the mercy of dice with no decisions being made.
Of course, a good trap is unanticipated. But is that good gameplay? Many real life traps are devious killers. Straighten a painting, get blown up. Roll over a wounded or dead soldier? Boom. Unless you knew to be wary of those traps, you can't make a meaningful decision. The player loses agency and what happens, happens. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be that player who is out a character when I had no decision involved. Now, you might say that you allowed some kind of roll for the player to realize. i say that is no consolation to the dead guy. All it does is promote characters with uncanny perception scores because they are tired of the 'gotcha!'s.
Just like a video game, you want to choreograph traps. The player should have an idea of the danger before he walks into it. Maybe he has seen a corpse impaled in a pit trap around here before or locals have warned him about them. Either way, the player can than make a decision to look out for the signs of those same traps. If he then falls into a pit trap it's not random happenstance that resulted in the outcome, but a failure of the player. And it is important that it be on the player and not the character.
You don't make a player roll their tactics skill to make a smart positioning choice in a combat, so why would you make him roll perception to notice what is right in front of him? The ability of the character is less important than engaging the player. By allowing the players smart actions to work you encourage that behavior and interaction. By making the player roll you encourage him to always take perception. When you do both you take the power from that decision and make it impingant upon a dice roll. So the player has all the work of the decision method to do to get the ability to engage in the rolling method. End result: your decision can be dead on and you still take it in the face. That isn't to say perception doesn't have a place.
So how should perception play into the equation? It goes something like this:
GM: the kobald runs away around the bend. What do you do? Player: I'll follow. GM: Ok, you round the bend and enter a small chamber. it's pretty dimly lit in here, but you can see some debris scattered about the middle of the chamber. Player: Debris? Is it thatch? GM: You can't tell from the entrance in this light. You'll either need to get a light source or make a perception check. The check will be harder if you want to keep chasing this turn. If you stop you'll have an easier time of it, but you may lose sight of the kobald.
Bam! Decision time. Do you want to roll the dice knowing you might fail and that is probably a trap? Do you want to stop which will make the chase harder? Perhaps you have a magical light source you can whip out to negate the darkness and the need to roll all together. This same room could have instead resulted in a very gotcha style consisting of the character running in, the GM allowing them to run across the trap because they never looked for traps, and the player getting suckered without anyway to have a different outcome.
Nearly every GM I have ever known to use traps did so haphazardly. They then brag how they put the fear of God into their players with kobald so and just how clever they were with their tactics. Here, have a prize, it's the douchiest GM award for Dicking over your players. Please go ahead and make a speech to your table about how you deserve your award. Don't be this guy.
|
|
mrcj
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 173
|
Post by mrcj on Mar 6, 2016 7:55:16 GMT -8
In some respects I agree with Steven. If a GM is using traps haphazardly or just to mess with the players he is dicking around and may be an ass. It is easy to kill a PC if you are a big enough ass. And though traps may be boring, so is slaughtering a bunch of under-powered NPCs. That is one of the reasons I don't play MMORPGs anymore, there is little more boring than grinding, I'll not do that as a player and certainly not as a GM.
In your example: 1. If the players are in the kobold lair, I'd have it mapped out; know where all the traps are and how they work; know how the kobolds would defend and how and what their ultimate goals are: do they want to kill and eat the PCs, scare them off, imprison them, use them to kill off a rival leader, etc. 2. I'd keep that kobold the PCs are chasing visible on the other side of the room as bait, with his bow, firing at the PCs to force a decision faster from the players. And if they pull up an archer or someone who can obviously strike from distance the kobold will run. 3. If the PCs sprint into the room without looking, I'd give an appropriate negative modifier, if they scare off/kill the kobold, the PCs probably get a bonus to find the trap. Falling damage can be lethal in GURPS, but for me personally I'd keep it in the 10ish feet down so not lethal, but now they have to fight off one or more kobolds and also try to get a PC out of a pit. In this scenario, traps are not static elements but complications to the narrative of whatever the PCs are doing.
As a GM in world building a think of the strategic element. Why do NPCs fight in certain ways, how do NPCs survive in this hostile world? In the case of the koblod example the trap is an equalizer. So in the NPC heads I consider how they maneuver the enemy to make things equal or gain an advantage. It doesn't have to be the trap but there may be a reason for all the kobolds to not all be eaten by orcs. Maybe they just run away all the time, or live in a place that only small sized people can access, or overwhelm with numbers (the usual RPG tactic, yawn), or maybe pay protection to a larger race, or live symbiotically with a dragon, or maybe the have tamed gelatinous cubes, or maybe they are skilled in a certain type of magic, or maybe they live under the protection of a deity who have given certain members of the tribe special powers, or a combination on and on and on.
For halflings, I generally used missile weapons. So how would they organize themselves to use missile weapons most effectively. Giants, their incredible strength and reach and so on.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Mar 6, 2016 17:41:50 GMT -8
I've been trying so hard to resist since yesterday...
I can't anymore...
Kobold.
Unless you're talking about the wrestler. In which case, ignore me.
|
|
|
Post by uselesstriviaman on Mar 8, 2016 6:48:52 GMT -8
I've been trying so hard to resist since yesterday... I can't anymore... Kobold. Unless you're talking about the wrestler. In which case, ignore me. Maybe the kobalds are just middle-aged and hairless?
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Mar 8, 2016 6:50:01 GMT -8
Male pattern descaling?
|
|
Gilded Phoenix
Initiate Douchebag
Posts: 23
Preferred Game Systems: GURPS, 5e, FFGSW, Savage Worlds
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition
Currently Running: Fantasy Flight Games Star Wars
Favorite Species of Monkey: Sea
|
Post by Gilded Phoenix on Oct 18, 2016 11:49:51 GMT -8
Combat tactics is really only one (albeit huge) facet of the tactics question, which is why I think it would make a good show topic.
Legal and political tactics are also ripe for discussion. If the players want to politically depose a king, there's a lot to be said for making a realistic political web where the characters have to make smart political decisions. Keep the right people in power and eliminate threats, all while watching their backs from NPCs who would just as quickly smile as betray them.
But sometimes the players don't want to go through that whole song and dance. Maybe political machinations are outside of their wheelhouse and don't want to get into the weeds about it. They just want to roll some dice and roleplay the results. Combat can be the same way. If the players and the GM both agree, then it doesn't really matter how realistic the tactics are, as long as the story gets told in a way that's enjoyable for everyone.
I think it's more important to keep the "feel" of tactics and smart decisions, rather than necessarily pressuring the players and GMs to always make the smartest, most tactical decisions. RPGs have their own internal logic to them, just like movies or TV shows.
You expect a good police procedural to give a fairly accurate portrayal of police procedure, but less so if the show is a family drama.
The same is true of combat tactics. A movie about soldiers in WWII you expect to portray real combat tactics and scenarios. You do not put the same burden on a show about a time-traveller who just happened to pop into WWII for an episode.
RPGs follow the same rules. If your game has regular combat, and you expect the feel to be tactical in nature, you better make sure your tactics are up to snuff. But if combat is a rare thing and not the focus, then who cares? All that matters is how the combat effects the characters.
Some GMs just aren't up to running detailed combats. Just like some GMs aren't up to running meticulous political intrigue. Brush up on tactics if you want your game to have a more tactical feel, but don't worry about it if you and the players don't really care.
|
|
sbloyd
Supporter
WHAT! A human in a Precursor service vehicle?!
Posts: 2,762
Preferred Game Systems: Storyteller; Dresden; Mage
Favorite Species of Monkey: Goddamnit, Curious George is a CHIMP not a monkey! Stop teaching my daughter improper classification!
|
Post by sbloyd on Oct 18, 2016 13:32:50 GMT -8
Welcome, GP. Now, for a bit of threadcromancy of my own: "The first step to becoming a Dirty GM involves a little syndrome I call “The Die Hard Effect.” (I’ve talked about this before in other places, so I’ll keep it brief.) Essentially, all players want their characters to be John McClane. You know, the guy Bruce Willis plays in the Die Hard films. They want to be knocked down, punched out, bloody, battered and beaten. But (and this is an important “but”, folks), every time they get knocked down, they want to be able to get back up." And boy howdy, does Fate make it easy to do this.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Oct 18, 2016 13:41:23 GMT -8
It's like Wick and Hicks share the same headspace.
|
|
Gilded Phoenix
Initiate Douchebag
Posts: 23
Preferred Game Systems: GURPS, 5e, FFGSW, Savage Worlds
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition
Currently Running: Fantasy Flight Games Star Wars
Favorite Species of Monkey: Sea
|
Post by Gilded Phoenix on Oct 18, 2016 13:42:26 GMT -8
Welcome, GP. Now, for a bit of threadcromancy of my own: "The first step to becoming a Dirty GM involves a little syndrome I call “The Die Hard Effect.” (I’ve talked about this before in other places, so I’ll keep it brief.) Essentially, all players want their characters to be John McClane. You know, the guy Bruce Willis plays in the Die Hard films. They want to be knocked down, punched out, bloody, battered and beaten. But (and this is an important “but”, folks), every time they get knocked down, they want to be able to get back up." And boy howdy, does Fate make it easy to do this. Oh, aha. I just realized when the last post was. My bad. Thanks for the greeting! I guess I should pay more attention to the age of threads. It's been a while since I've been on an active forum. I don't really understand the term, "Dirty GM", but I do see what you mean about Die Hard.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Oct 18, 2016 13:52:06 GMT -8
It's a term from John Wick's book "How to be a Dirty GM". It's a great read and I highly recommend it.
In point of fact , that quote was me quoting him from that book.
|
|