PDA

View Full Version : Role-playing in Combat



AoiRorentsu
2007-02-11, 04:52 AM
Howdy! This issue came up in a previous thread I started, and I thought it merited its own separate discussion. That is to say, role-playing in combat. Do you guys think its doable? sensible? all overly too-much to think about-able? Inquiring minds want to know!!!!

Elan's quips back here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0393.html) provide a good example of what I would guess would be a mechanical intersection between role-playing and combat. I'm looking for more "what would your character do in combat?" type stuff.

Hypothetical Examples:
1) my 9th-level fairly intelligent fighter, who also has an MBA :roy:, is an experienced enough combatant to know that if you and an ally are fighting the same opponent, it's best to get on opposite sides of him to divide his attention (handy +2 to attack!). My 1st-level cleric, who up until this point has spent his entire young-adult life cloistered in a temple somewhere studying ancient religious texts, doesn't. Unless someone told him to, it might take him a couple combats to figure it out. Should the player get RP-XP for consciously (as in, he drops the suggestion that he's) not meta-gaming and instead standing next to the party fighter? Should the fighter get RP-XP for shouting at the cleric to move into a flanking position?

2) My barbarian doesn't understand the meaning of the word "tactics" (in fact, with that Int of 6 and illiteracy, he's pretty much confined to monosyllabic words). When he sees a line of lightly-armored, not very agile guys sauntering towards him, he screams "Screw you, bow!" and charges directly into the middle of the enemy group with the justification "So I can throw a punch at all of them!." (he doesn't have whirlwind attack)

I guess what it boils down to is, should players who consciously use tactics appropriate for their characters' experience, class, perhaps skills, feats, etc. but perhaps not the best possible tactics get rewarded with XP? How do DMs encourage role-playing in situations (like combat) that are generally not typically thought of as "role-playing encounters"?

More importantly, does anyone have any funny stories of people role-playing in combat?

oriong
2007-02-11, 05:08 AM
Well, first of all this is entirely different from role-playing in combat. Role-playing in combat is easy.

This seems like trying to determine if your character has the means (i.e. knows about them) to use every technique available to him in a fight. The simple answer is yes. They do, every single one of them.

All the basic combat techniques are dreadfully easy to understand. A first level commoner should understand the extremely common-sense benefits of flanking much less a first level cleric (who, keep in mind actually has pretty decent combat training under his belt). The same goes for things like fighting defensively, charging, grappling, etc. They're all really straightforward and many don't even represent 'techniques' so much as just the desires of the character (fighting defensively = "oh **** I don't want to die!")

Now, the second example seems more to be asking if the most expedient tactic is the best one from a roleplaying perspective. Now the barbarian example is just a straight no. Even if he has no formal training that barbarian is a damn skilled and experienced warrior. He knows better even if he can't count how many fingers are on each hand.

But there are situations where maybe the character's desires and RP may conflict with the best way to bring down an opponent. But, remember that a character is under the control of their player and often motivation can be a very malleable thing. While it's possible for player to think up a reason why a character wouldn't do X, it's often just as easy to think of a reason why he would. sometimes there will simply be situations where the right choice is not the best choice, and in those cases it is often more appropraite to go with the character's motivations. They're usually few and far between excepting folks like Paladins.


However I do not think that DM's should hand out XP for being sub-optimal in combat. This just encourages a wizard to put his friends in the area of a fireball (his wisdom is low! it's the heat of battle!), the rogue to refuse to fight at all (he's cowardly!) or the skilled warriors to actually act incompetent 'in character' whenever they're confident they can win the fight anyway and then get XP for it. It's not a good idea in my opinion, telling someone they'll get rewarded for shooting themselves in the foot is not a good strategy especially because then you're penalizing those whose character's roles are expertly trained or thoughtful fighters who take the advantages and play combat to the hilt but they don't get any bonus because they're not screwing themselves.


EDIT: For actual, in combat, role-playing I think the best systems are stuff like Exalted's Stunt system or similar systems used by various games. Essentially the more 'flavorful' or cool the description of an attack or indeed any action the more likely it is to do well (basically a concrete combat bonus). So:

I swing and hit him with my mace (no bonus).
I whip my mace through the air at the skeleton's head, trying to crush the skull. (small bonus)
I shove forward, holding up my shield as defense and bring my mace around as a backhand strike, the force of the blow crushing the undead monstrosity's bones to powder. The mace's head trails bits of dried flesh and particles of shattered bone. (big bonus)

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-11, 05:19 AM
Well-answered.

Someone should run an Exalted game here. Fair Folk, ideally, but that's a lot to ask for.


(Incidentally, Aoi--Palo Alto? I'm from there, when I'm not off at college. Paly or Gunn?)

PinkysBrain
2007-02-11, 05:20 AM
I'd say strategy requires intelligence, while tactics require wisdom.

"I shove forward, holding up my shield as defense and bring my mace around as a backhand strike, the force of the blow crushing the undead monstrosity's bones to powder. The mace's head trails bits of dried flesh and particles of shattered bone. (big bonus)"

Doesn't that makes things a bit awkward if even with the bonus you miss or alternatively he is somehow resisting the damage you are trying to deal?

Ikkitosen
2007-02-11, 05:23 AM
Keeping your character's motivations in mind whilst going through the number crunching/decision making of combat is a good skill, and one you should enjoy practising, rather than one you should do for mechanical (XP) benefit.

I agree with oriong that no leveled character should make stupid, basic mistakes in combat. However you character may have the motivation to do something wrong, and if this is IC for him or her then by all means do so. I mean, charging at the killer of your father without a thought for the consequences may be a good idea for your guy!

As for description in combat, D&D doesn't lend itself so well to that kind of thing but with a bit of effort you can make combat much more vivid and enjoyable. I don't know the BoED rules, but there's a game called Feng Shui that's absed on Honk Kong action movies and in which you have to describe the effects of your moves. In D&D this often falls to the DM, but I'm a fan of divorcing the dice rolls from the actions and letting the player do some of the work. Roll the dice, determine the mechanical resolution then let the player describe what cool stunt he or she just pulled.

Saph
2007-02-11, 06:38 AM
I guess what it boils down to is, should players who consciously use tactics appropriate for their characters' experience, class, perhaps skills, feats, etc. but perhaps not the best possible tactics get rewarded with XP?

It's good roleplaying, so it's fair for the DM to reward it, although he probably wouldn't be able to give that much (since it would come up a lot). Combat tactics and strategy are both MUCH more difficult than people think they are, especially applied in the heat of battle. Working out the optimal thing to do is easy when you're looking down on figures on a board, but if you're in the middle of all the chaos of a combat, it's very hard to think about anything except self-preservation and dealing with the guy in front of you. In these kind of situations your character's emotional state is much more important.

I don't really agree with oriong's answer, because if every player played like that you'd have the silliness of every single PC acting like a West Point graduate. There's nothing wrong with playing a cool-headed strategist who always picks the best tactical choice every time, but not every character should be like that.

My take on it:

"I hit the guy who hit me last turn" - fine.
"I hit the guy who looks weakest" - fine.
"I'm hurt, so I back off" - fine unless you wrote on your character sheet that you don't retreat from battles.
"I hit the guy who hit me last turn even though I know he's likely to kill me next attack" - reasonable if you're that kind of character, although you don't have to.
"I hit the whole area with a fireball since I'm not thinking about who else is in the blast range" - stupid.
"I take one 5-foot step diagonally right, then make my attack against the first guy. Because of the initiative order, the second guy will have moved away by the time the rogue goes, but this guy won't have, which means he'll be able to tumble out of the square of the third guy and sneak attack the first guy." - tactically optimal, but ridiculous and really irritating. There is no realistic way your low-Int PC would be able to work that out in the two-three seconds he has to think before attacking, all while fighting and keeping metagame concepts like initiative in mind. This kind of thing really hurts suspension of disbelief, and slows the game down as players make involved tactical plans when their characters aren't supposed to be able to talk to each other.


How do DMs encourage role-playing in situations (like combat) that are generally not typically thought of as "role-playing encounters"?

Describing the enemies with adjectives instead of their names helps. For instance: "You turn around to see a creature standing behind you. It's about yay big (ten feet) and from there to there long (twenty). Four legs, a tail, wings and a long neck. The body is covered with burnished blue scales, and a smell of ozone comes from it, like on a thundery day. At the end of the neck is a head containing two blue eyes that look like glowing sapphires, and it's staring down at you."

Now, if the PCs make their Knowledge checks, they'll know this is a blue dragon, and the players probably know it already, but describing it in terms of what their character sees, rather than what the player knows it to be, puts them into the game world more. Do the same for combat actions. The PCs don't need to know exactly what combat manoevre the monsters are doing, they just need to know what it looks like.

There are more things, but this post is long enough already. :)

- Saph

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-11, 06:44 AM
"I take one 5-foot step diagonally right, then make my attack against the first guy. Because of the initiative order, the second guy will have moved away by the time the rogue goes, but this guy won't have, which means he'll be able to tumble out of the square of the third guy and sneak attack the first guy." - tactically optimal, but ridiculous and really irritating. There is no realistic way your low-Int PC would be able to work that out in the two-three seconds he has to think before attacking, all while fighting and keeping metagame concepts like initiative in mind. This kind of thing really hurts suspension of disbelief, and slows the game down as players make involved tactical plans when their characters aren't supposed to be able to talk to each other.

Note that that is, essentially, the default playstyle of D&D. D&D's wargaming roots are very prominent, and tactical combat is one of the things you do; running combat in D&D feels very different from everything else. There are squares, flanking bonuses, et cetera; this sort of thing is a part of the system. Compare to, say, Wushu (http://www.bayn.org/wushu/wushu-open.html), where there is zero tactical combat and combat is handled in essentially the same way everything else is.

Saph
2007-02-11, 06:53 AM
Note that that is, essentially, the default playstyle of D&D. D&D's wargaming roots are very prominent, and tactical combat is one of the things you do; running combat in D&D feels very different from everything else.

It doesn't have to be, though. All you have to do is look at your character's position on the map, take a second to imagine what he'd be seeing and hearing from there, and then take your action based on that. It's not like there's anything stopping you from thinking in character, and a lot of players just get into the game and do it naturally anyway.

- Saph

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-11, 07:00 AM
No, it doesn't have to be. You can ignore the "tactical wargame" half of D&D.
But then, really, wouldn't you be better off with a different game? One where the combat mechanics are less based on and promoting tactical wargaming?

JellyPooga
2007-02-11, 07:42 AM
Not quite an amusing story about combat role-playing, but rather a character combination that was a little bizarre.

My mate was playing a Gnoll Barb./Ranger with more than a little bloodlust. He liked to kill things.

In the same party, I was playing a Half-Ogre Monk...pacifist.

Combat usually went a bit like this:

Gnoll: Kill slay, kill slay. "Ha ha ha! Die!"

Half-Ogre: THUMP [Enemy Unconscious]. THUMP [Enemy Unconscious] (he hit hard) "Hey guys? I really don't like doing this you know." THUMP [Enemy Unconscious]. "But if it gets the job done." THUMP [Enemy Unconscious]

Gnoll: "Coo, helpless opponents"...Coup de Grace, Coup de Grace, Coup de Grace.

[Combat ends]

Half-Ogre: "Now we just tie up the..ones..I..knocked...out....uh, what happened to them? Did you kill them again?"

Gnoll: Who? Me?

Saph
2007-02-11, 08:08 AM
But then, really, wouldn't you be better off with a different game? One where the combat mechanics are less based on and promoting tactical wargaming?

Not really. I've tried plenty of RPGs and I prefer D&D. I honestly don't see how thinking in character is a problem. Like I said, most of the players in my groups do it without even thinking about it much.

- Saph

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-11, 08:17 AM
It's not a problem--but the system doesn't really help it in any way. Often, it actively hinders it. The tactical-wargaming, crunch-system is, intentionally, one of the points/draws of D&D; by ignoring it, you're basically ignoring half the game. Which is perfectly viable, sure, but I can't help but think that there's a better game for you if you're ignoring half of the one you're playing.

Saph
2007-02-11, 08:26 AM
But we don't ignore it. We just pick combat actions based on what's going on around us. The grid-based miniatures aspect actually helps, because it's easier to visualise exactly where you are and what your character can see and hear.

I think you've gotten the wrong impression somewhere . . . we know the rules and use them, we just don't do anything that can't be justified in-character. And like I said, I've tried plenty of RPG systems and D&D is my favourite, so I think you're wrong about there being a better game for me.

- Saph

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-11, 08:33 AM
The problem with "justified in character" is that a lot of the tacticial miniatures stuff doesn't carry over directly. Attack rolls, hits, HP loss, flanking for positions (everyone involved is bobbing and weaving all over the place), all that jazz--is quite a few levels of abstraction away from what's going on in-character. You can take a character and give him a large number of actions in the abstract system that would be justified in-character.

Matthew
2007-02-11, 09:19 AM
The tactical War Game aspect of D&D is actually more of a 3.x emphasis than really rooted in the genesis of the game. That said, it is the default playstyle of D&D 3.x.

oriong
2007-02-11, 02:41 PM
I don't know that I agree Matthew, nothing I've seen of 3rd edition makes it more 'wargamey' than 2nd (I can't speak for earlier stuff though). In fact I'd say if anything 2nd edition was more war-gamish. I'd say the primary difference is that 3.x codifies a lot more actions, providing a single list of 'stuff you can do' which really isn't so much a move towards 'tactical wargame' as a move towards specificity.


It's good roleplaying, so it's fair for the DM to reward it, although he probably wouldn't be able to give that much (since it would come up a lot). Combat tactics and strategy are both MUCH more difficult than people think they are, especially applied in the heat of battle. Working out the optimal thing to do is easy when you're looking down on figures on a board, but if you're in the middle of all the chaos of a combat, it's very hard to think about anything except self-preservation and dealing with the guy in front of you. In these kind of situations your character's emotional state is much more important.

But then what about those PCs who are the fantasy equivalent of westpoint graduates? You'd either penalize them (by not giving them extra xp) because they aren't hurting themselves in a fight or you're just giving everyone motivation to play some sort of combat vet (no matter their class or backstory) because that way they can fight well and get free xp.


I don't really agree with oriong's answer, because if every player played like that you'd have the silliness of every single PC acting like a West Point graduate. There's nothing wrong with playing a cool-headed strategist who always picks the best tactical choice every time, but not every character should be like that.

How did my answer imply that every player should play a cool-headed strategist? My point was that none of the combat options available to all PCs are at all complex and none would require even the slightest bit of training to understand or use, even in the heat of combat. Most could be explained easily as emotional actions (charge, fight defensively, total defense, etc.).

Now, as for PCs making the 'best choice' in combat, I never said that they always should, just that often there's just as much motivation characterwise to make a good choice as there is to make a bad choice. Unless you're starting straight at first level no PC has an excuse to be a combat novice, and even then most have years and years of training under their belt.

Sometimes you'll get in a situation where you just can't make the 'best' choice because of character motivations. Often there are other options that will fit. Maybe your fighter refuses to retreat, so he'll fight defensively or go on all out defense instead. But sometimes your character concept will force you to make certain choices and that's okay, if that's how your character is made. But rewarding poor choices just leads to more poor choices.

kamikasei
2007-02-11, 03:04 PM
"I take one 5-foot step diagonally right, then make my attack against the first guy. Because of the initiative order, the second guy will have moved away by the time the rogue goes, but this guy won't have, which means he'll be able to tumble out of the square of the third guy and sneak attack the first guy." - tactically optimal, but ridiculous and really irritating.

"I step up to the pair of guys who are moving away, and engage the one who's closer, so he can't retreat. This will give my sneaky friend a chance to blindside him, assuming he can get away from the guy who's currently on him, which shouldn't be hard. It's an obviously good idea here for the two of us to pound on this guy instead of dividing our energies."

That's not all that involved a strategy. Hit a guy, so your friend can hit him too. All the 5-foot-steps and initiative and tumble talk is irrelevant to the PC. They're abstractions of what is actually happening from the character's perspective, and just because a painstaking and unambiguous verbal description of actions in combat looks hard to craft doesn't mean it's hard for the character to come to those decisions.


There is no realistic way your low-Int PC would be able to work that out in the two-three seconds he has to think before attacking, all while fighting and keeping metagame concepts like initiative in mind. This kind of thing really hurts suspension of disbelief, and slows the game down as players make involved tactical plans when their characters aren't supposed to be able to talk to each other.

"Metagame concepts like initiative" have nothing to do with the character's thought processes. They're abstractions. Whatever they are supposed to represent (and it's probably not anything directly) needn't be something difficult for a character to deal with.

It seems like you think it requires more INT to come up with an action that takes longer to describe than "I hit the guy beside me", but that needn't be so. Remember that the character's aren't carefully describing what they do, one action after another; they're doing it, more or less all at once, which is a lot easier than telling someone else about it. As to the difficulties of making involved tactical plans, you would have a point if we were talking about an intricate sequence of attacks, spells, and maneuvers all being made up on the fly, but we're talking about two guys stabbing some other guys. The coordination required for two teammates to successfully isolate and flank an enemy shouldn't require much more of an "Oy, Bob!" if it requires words at all. (And who says you can't talk in combat?)

MrNexx
2007-02-11, 03:35 PM
I don't know that I agree Matthew, nothing I've seen of 3rd edition makes it more 'wargamey' than 2nd (I can't speak for earlier stuff though). In fact I'd say if anything 2nd edition was more war-gamish. I'd say the primary difference is that 3.x codifies a lot more actions, providing a single list of 'stuff you can do' which really isn't so much a move towards 'tactical wargame' as a move towards specificity.

The tactical wargame emphasis started with Combat and Tactics; while 2nd edition could be played with miniatures and such, it could easily be played with a sketched map or a quick description.

3.5, especially, REQUIRES miniatures, or at least a constantly updated map with markers telling where everyone is at every moment. Did you get an attack of opportunity from that last movement? Are you in the Area of Effect? In previous edition, these could be a bit more easily handwaved, but starting with C&T, they became a lot more precisely determined.



But then what about those PCs who are the fantasy equivalent of westpoint graduates?

Truthfully, D&D doesn't deal with backstory well. I can write a Rogue who's a West Point graduate. The supposedly martial and highly trained Warmages are all West Point graduates, yet they have crappy BAB, a crappy weapon selection, and a sub-par spell list (being primarily one school, with similarly themed spells from other schools).

Backstory is fluff, and therefore it's ignored in favor of mechanics... that's WotC's official policy.

AoiRorentsu
2007-02-11, 03:35 PM
Combat tactics and strategy are both MUCH more difficult than people think they are, especially applied in the heat of battle. ...In these kinds of situations your character's emotional state is much more important.

"I take one 5-foot step diagonally right, then make my attack against the first guy. Because of the initiative order, the second guy will have moved away by the time the rogue goes, but this guy won't have, which means he'll be able to tumble out of the square of the third guy and sneak attack the first guy."


You know what's funny? A lot of people who understand tactics don't even do so well when looking down at the board. I know plenty who are fantastic D&D combat strategists, and then I take them paintballing and they're basically sitting ducks. Then I play chess with them and, even though it's still looking down at a board, the tactics don't translate even though many of same basic concepts apply. This is not to say that I myself am particularly good at any of these things, but that you are right on the money in saying that things are different in the heat of battle. What makes sense conceptually to a 1st level commoner can be lost when you're in the thick of combat and trying to keep a 150 ft/sec paintball (or crossbow bolt, or magic missile, or whatever) from planting itself on/in the crown of your head.

That's a great example, as well- as you imply, it is really important to keep players from talking to each other during combat. They might be able to take a free action to shout a short 10-syllable something (in which case all the little enemies can hear it too, most likely), or, if they (and by they, I hopefully mean the characters) are smart, they would develop hand signals (ala the Giant's nemesis' series of books) to spread information between them quickly.


Well, first of all this is entirely different from role-playing in combat. Role-playing in combat is easy.

However I do not think that DM's should hand out XP for being sub-optimal in combat... It's not a good idea in my opinion, telling someone they'll get rewarded for shooting themselves in the foot is not a good strategy especially because then you're penalizing those whose character's roles are expertly trained or thoughtful fighters who take the advantages and play combat to the hilt but they don't get any bonus because they're not screwing themselves.

EDIT: For actual, in combat, role-playing I think the best systems are stuff like Exalted's Stunt system or similar systems used by various games. Essentially the more 'flavorful' or cool the description of an attack or indeed any action the more likely it is to do well (basically a concrete combat bonus).

I do see your point, oriong. It definitely skews player incentives when you start awarding XP for doing things that potentially harm other party members and, by extension, make the game less fun. So, maybe XP, except in very special cases and even then only in small amounts, should probably be out. But I'm curious - what do you think of when you hear "role-playing in combat"? The exalted system?

See above for my and Saph's responses to your assertion that 1st level commoners can understand the benefits of flanking. What I'm more talking about (and sorry I didn't clarify this in the original post) is having a Chaotic Evil barbarian who rages at the start of every combat and then immediately starts fighting defensively. Unless I'm misinterpreting the PHB entry for a barbarian rage, there's nothing stopping him from doing that. It just doesn't make sense IMO. I mean, you could rule that fighting defensively requires patience and thus is impermissible. I would venture, in any case, that surrendering to your basic instincts, and really what's more basic that "fight or flight," does not translate into "I see that the enemies are positioned like _____, and that ALL of my allies are positioned like _____, and therefore I move here to best set up flanking attempts and allow my wizard buddy to cast good area-effect spells" probably isn't going to happen even though the barbarian is an experienced warrior. I mean, hey, there's a lot of polysyllabic words in there!

I think that Spot checks, etc, ought to be in order, but that of course raises the problem that spot is not a fighter skill, and fighters, if anyone, should be able to make the observation above.

As for Exalted's system, based on your description I'd say it lends itself to a lot of very subjective number-manipulation, no? Besides which, not every hit a player scores would or should be smashing the enemy's skull in a single blow. I thought that's what critical hits were for....


The tactical War Game aspect of D&D is actually more of a 3.x emphasis than really rooted in the genesis of the game. That said, it is the default playstyle of D&D 3.x.

Well... I think it's more complicated than that. There are certainly more rules in D&D regarding combat than other situations. And the feats and spells, are, a majority of the time, designed for combat utility. Though of course, you don't need so many different ways of charming someone or seeing through walls- the one or two spells/skills will do just fine.

This dichotomy is because, i think, combat comes less intuitively to people, and is more open to abuse because of its lethality. People don't need to be told "well, you can try to bargain with the guy, or you could lie to him, or you could bully him around"- they know their characters can do all those things because they can do all those things. Combat needs to be spelled out and structured more explicitly because it is non-intuitive and open to abuse.

You are right though that a lot of people seem to run RP-ing in the manner of "Does he do what I want? let me do this single unopposed diplomacy check!" and BOOM issue resolved does indeed suggest that D&D is better designed for combat, and the Diplomacy skill RAW were a tremendous oversight on the part of Wizards, for which they should all be taken to the playground and schooled by the Giant. While you're right, then, that D&D's RAW design is conducive to more structured combat, i think that it doesn't take a lot for the DM to say "complex opposed Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate/SenseMotive/Whatever skill check" in a RP situation and have it be more a little interesting.

Thanks for asking, Bears! :smallsmile: I myself am in school down here.... technically it's not Palo Alto, but for all intents and purposes it really is. I am actually from up in the East Bay.

Phew! long post. A cookie to anyone who actually reads through it! :smallsmile:

oriong
2007-02-11, 04:20 PM
Well, I don't think those are fair comparisons there:

First, any character they play is going to be combat experienced than they are, there's no reason why their abilities with a battle mat should translate to the real world. And I still stand by my statement that they could grasp the basics of D+D combat options, however one of the basic false assumptions D+D makes is that defense (i.e. AC) is something that everyone knows about and can do without any prior training or even real effort.

And chess doesn't reasonably have anything to do with either real life or D+D combat, it's strategic thinking, not tactical thinking.

But really, even then it's no big issue. Almost all of the PC classes are fairly combat savvy, and after 2nd level they've all been in their share of fights.

I do see more what you mean with your barbarian example. The advantage is that in most cases the most advantagous choice is still in character. For instance, no barbarian would ever want to start fighting defensively while raging. It's just not a good idea. But I'm sure there are situations where these things conflict. At that point it comes down to how your DM handles any sort of 'out of character' behavior, this situation might come up more often in combat than out of combat but it's going to be more or less the same solution either way. How you handle the brave, fercious barbarian fighting like a coward is the same way you handle the upright Cleric of the God of Truth conning someone into selling them a sword for half-price through his Diplomacy skill.

There's no easy way to handle these situations, and probably no single way either. it just varies from group to group and player to player.


The Exalted system doesn't worry much about stuff like critical hits and so on (and you can often be pretty sure when you're going to cave someone's head in there. it's uber-powered). But the descriptions are more accurately what the player is attempting to do, while the DM describes what actually happens when the dice fall ("The skeleton stumbles away from your mace, its bones rattling and you only strike the tip of it's rusted helmet, shattering the ancient metal and cracking the bone underneath" or "you slip and fall, your mace flies from your hands caving in the groin of your best friend 10 feet away")

Piedmon_Sama
2007-02-11, 04:25 PM
There is no right or wrong answer to this question. It's just a matter of play style. I personally enjoy occasionally blundering on purpose if it's the action my character would do. Of course, I don't have anything close to a 20-level investment in my characters, and my attitude is more towards "oh well, if he dies I have five or six more concepts I've been wanting to try out..."

iceman
2007-02-11, 04:58 PM
I don't know about all this talk of stategy and tactics, when I play my character I have a general sense of what their personality is like and play them as such.
In one instance I was playing a cheeky, arrogant wizard who usually accompanied any spell or action in combat with a wise acre remark.
Such as when I apologized to the cleric just before sending a badguy through a church window. Or when I attempted to create a new spell called summon lawn chair and dry martini for those fights that I didn't feel were necessary for me to participate in. (DM thought this was hilarious but still refused to allow me to create it)
Another character (dwarf cleric) that almost never participated in combat because all the other characters usuzally beat him in initiative and would kill everything before he could get to a position to wade in. Seeing as how I had built toward a more combat heavy role I was delegated to 'cursing' his companions and complaining about not getting to have any fun. It eventually became a game to keep my character from being allowed to attack anything even at the expense of puting the entire party at risk. mainly because they enjoyed watching me try to come up with new ways to curse at their characters in a thick Dwarvish style accent.

Saph
2007-02-11, 05:26 PM
It seems like you think it requires more INT to come up with an action that takes longer to describe than "I hit the guy beside me", but that needn't be so. Remember that the character's aren't carefully describing what they do, one action after another; they're doing it, more or less all at once, which is a lot easier than telling someone else about it.

In six seconds? While someone's trying to stab a sword into you? Making a tactical plan, or for that matter any plan at all, in those situations is very difficult. When someone's about to skewer you you really don't have much attention to spare for things like noticing the positions of everyone around you and giving them directions for where to move.

That said, it's understandable why this happens, and it'd be a bit unfair to penalise players for doing it. The OP wasn't about that, though, it was about rewarding players who make a conscious choice to roleplay.


As to the difficulties of making involved tactical plans, you would have a point if we were talking about an intricate sequence of attacks, spells, and maneuvers all being made up on the fly, but we're talking about two guys stabbing some other guys. The coordination required for two teammates to successfully isolate and flank an enemy shouldn't require much more of an "Oy, Bob!" if it requires words at all. (And who says you can't talk in combat?)

Just isolating/flanking an enemy? Fine. But these things segue. It quickly turns from 'isolating and flanking an enemy' to making tactical plans that would take five minutes to properly describe, and segues from there into outright metagaming like hitting a monster in its vulnerability (which the PCs failed their Knowledge checks on and thus aren't supposed to know) or sharing information with PCs who aren't in any position to communicate.

- Saph

AoiRorentsu
2007-02-11, 06:12 PM
thanks, iceman! that story was hilarious, and, if you got that name from x-men, fantastic taste in superheroes! In as an attempt to prove to my disapproving friends that the bard could seriously be the most badass character around, I made one with ranks in perform(Gnomish insults)- I conceived it sort of like improvisational haiku in which the person would use syllables, inflections, and imagery of various kinds to craft a wicked jibe. So, during combat, he would cast his buff spells ahead of time if possible, but then wade into melee while doing inspire X. It was awesome. Roleplayed like "The lightly armored swordsman walks towards you with an almost flippant confidence, spouting insults at you that seem to further embolden him even as you brush them aside." Maybe not the best idea tactically for a bard to rock the melee, nor would that necessarily pass the DM "but wait a minute..." test, but fun none-the-less as an NPC.

I want to swear right now that I designed this character almost two years ago, before Elan got totally badass. I promise.

Back to the tactical RP discussion. Oriong, you make a lot of good points- you're right that the PCs, especially ones with a decent amount of experience, would be much better tactically and strategically. I guess that leaves me stuck with what would really be the difference in combat aptitude between a 1st level warrior and a 20th level fighter. Some HP, saves, and like (granted) 17 feats? Should there be a difference beyond knowing more moves/stances etc and being able to take more punishment? I guess it'd be hard for a DM to adjudicate this, but does any of that make sense as a concern?

kamikasei
2007-02-11, 06:14 PM
In six seconds? While someone's trying to stab a sword into you? Making a tactical plan, or for that matter any plan at all, in those situations is very difficult. When someone's about to skewer you you really don't have much attention to spare for things like noticing the positions of everyone around you and giving them directions for where to move.

By that rationale no one should be able to do anything in combat except hit the nearest guy. Moving would be far too difficult - after all, someone's trying to stab you, and you only have six stressful seconds to decide where to move.

My point is that a team who have fought together before and who are not actively incompetent should be able to use basic tactics from the PHB like working together to flank an enemy, set up sneak attack opportunities for the rogue, have an idea of how well able your allies are to accomplish something that in rules terms requires a check, etc. The only thing in your example not readily translatable to some in-character thing the characters should readily be able to work with is the initiative order, because it's a total abstraction, but there's not really any way around that without undoing the turn-based side of the game.

I agree that complex tactics should need to be worked out in advance if they're to be decided upon in the heat of battle and communicated to the others within the limits of hand signals or a free action's worth of speech. However, viewing the example you gave as metagaming basically says that a player cannot show his character as able to adapt tactics during battle at all, which is unfair and not very sensible.

If your complaint is that the descriptions are too dry and technical that's unavoidable if a maneuver is to be described unambiguously. You could ask that players give an in-character description as well, before or after the ruleswise one. For that matter, the example you gave would translate fairly easily. "I step up to the bandit with the worn cloak, knowing I can get to him before he can retreat with his ally in the chain shirt. I slash at his legs, intending to keep him here fighting with me, while I signal Gareth to break off from the halfling with the crossbow and attack my target while he's distracted." Same tactics, nothing out-of-character or metagaming that I can see, only problem being a need to justify some of what you're attempting in an aside showing how it's allowed within the rules.


Just isolating/flanking an enemy? Fine. But these things segue. It quickly turns from 'isolating and flanking an enemy' to making tactical plans that would take five minutes to properly describe, and segues from there into outright metagaming like hitting a monster in its vulnerability (which the PCs failed their Knowledge checks on and thus aren't supposed to know) or sharing information with PCs who aren't in any position to communicate. There are already reasons why these things are bad. They're metagaming, or they're communicating more than a free action's worth of words would allow. These problems can be dealt with on their own terms, and have nothing to do with simple tactical play.


I guess that leaves me stuck with what would really be the difference in combat aptitude between a 1st level warrior and a 20th level fighter. Some HP, saves, and like (granted) 17 feats? Should there be a difference beyond knowing more moves/stances etc and being able to take more punishment?

You could perhaps argue that a 20th level fighter, having gained abilities like Trip or Bull Rush or whatever, are gaining in tactical knowledge as well as simple ability (since there's no reason to think that a low-level character would know how best to use high-level abilities until he gets them himself). You could roleplay that a high-level character of any sort is more willing to make plans ahead of time and come up with ways to communicate them in combat, or just better at doing so. And I suppose you could say that a high-level fighter can justify knowing more about his enemy and what tactics will work against it, although I guess there are Knowledge skills for that already. What I mean is that a high-level character might not make the mistake of using a particular tactic that's normally valid but to which the particular foe is immune, while a low-level character could try tactics that normally work well because he's never seen the enemy before and doesn't know it's an exception. Perhaps you could houserule some sort of level check to recognize a particular ability - a high-level fighter and a low level fighter could see the same monster they hadn't the Knowledge skill to recognize, but the high-level guy would get a chance to infer that it probably has a gaze attack?

Saph
2007-02-11, 06:47 PM
By that rationale no one should be able to do anything in combat except hit the nearest guy. Moving would be far too difficult - after all, someone's trying to stab you, and you only have six stressful seconds to decide where to move.

Oh, for heaven's sake. Where did I say anything like that? The original question was 'Is it reasonable to give players credit for prioritising roleplaying over combat tactics?' and I said yes, and gave several examples as to why sub-optimal tactics are completely understandable as an in-character action due to how confusing and chaotic combat is. I also said that if you DO want to play a cool-headed strategist and always pull off the perfect manoevre, that's perfectly fine. I did not once say that you 'should not be allowed' to do anything. You're arguing with an imaginary opponent.


Back to the tactical RP discussion. Oriong, you make a lot of good points- you're right that the PCs, especially ones with a decent amount of experience, would be much better tactically and strategically. I guess that leaves me stuck with what would really be the difference in combat aptitude between a 1st level warrior and a 20th level fighter.

They should act differently, really. A 1st-level character is inexperienced by definition, but by the time you're 10th-level or so, the average D&D adventurer will have fought against a huge variety of monsters. Even a low-Int type will know his way around all types of combat by then, due to being able to keep a cool head if nothing else.

I'd say that any character of 10th level or over should be a good tactician, and any character of 15th level or over should be an expert one. There's just no way you can survive that many fights without learning a lot.

- Saph

Ravyn
2007-02-11, 06:48 PM
When I think about role-playing in combat, usually it's less the decisions and more what's being said and how what's being done looks.

...yes, the systems I play include Exalted. Deal. (And someone does need to run a game--I can't do Fair Folk, I only do 1E, and my schedule stinks, but find me enough people and I'll come up with something. Particularly if people want to playtest my overly ambitious rewrites. But that's getting off-topic.)

Either way, for me it's not so much the tactics as the reasons. The dragon-knight who doesn't know or care if it's going to work, but the opponent is a. flying and b. messing with her friend, and leaping up and grappling it so it'll be too heavy to fly seems like as good an idea as any. The ferret ex-familiar who clings to the couatl's back in the fight because she's never really fought without her wizard before and not sure what else she can do. The child-deathknight raised on tales of glory in the service of the Abyss who knows perfectly well she has the best chance against the big guy with the bigger club and tells her teammates to go beat up on someone else. The delicate manipulator/intimidator who tries to rout an army by shouting at it, then when that (barely) fails tries to make sure the attacks are coming at her and not the one she's supposed to be guarding. Heck, the improvised weapon specialist whose answer to the flying foe is "Yeah, toss me. I think I can survive the fall if we miss." or the audacious cutpurse whose goal in her average fight isn't to kill but to humiliate.

Then again, in games I've been in RPXP isn't so much an issue as the fact that nifty descriptions and the like are just what the group does. (And for the Exalted games, the stunt dice don't hurt, either. Created some good habits, and I missed them when coming back to D&D.)

Roethke
2007-02-11, 06:58 PM
I think there are a couple of things going on here (all of which could effect the answer to the question) that are getting conflated, and should be discussed separately.

1) System-stuff. I'm going to use my trusty 10ft pole to poke at the 3.x vs. Feng Shui vs. Exalted, etc. aspects of this.

Q: Does 3.x encourage tactics over RP in combat?
A: Yes. I don't think there's any getting around this. But it balances this by actively encouraging good description. All those examples in PHB & DMG showing the 'good' way to describe combat include vivid description. Of course we all know that it's hard (and not always desirable) to keep up that level of detail.

Q: Does my 3.x campaign need to do so?
A: No, take as much as you want or leave as much as you want. Probably depends on the combat (and the group). Random or minor encounter, combat can almost be like a mini-game break from the story (which can be good, lets the PCs learn how to work together, and get out some stress). Even some meta-gaming here can be okay, that way the PC's will know what works when an important comabat comes up. Confronting the Evil Mastermind, probably worth putting in some RP effort, and being a bit more strict on PC communication.


Q: Should you use a system 'more suited' to the type of combat your run
A: My own religious stance is that the players & DM make the game, system is sort of incidental. Personally, I think it's much more important to have a system with which everybody's comfortable. Nothing 'breaks' the mood more than digging through the books. Even Saph's absurdly tactical combat description can be pretty quickly translated into a set of actions, if you're familiar with the system.

2) Role Playing abilities
Q:Does Low Int mean my Barb can't figure out X action? This is always one of my greatest dilemmas with D&D. You want to encourage creative play, but you also want to encourage RPing of abilities. I tend to err on the side of creative play. ( this is especially the case if I use a puzzle. I never say to a player, your character can't come up with a solution because he's too stupid).

All those failed knowledge checks, lack of access to Comb. Expertise, etc. tend to force the RPing of low int, anyhow. Same goes for other abilities, at least that's the argument I buy.

The other piece is that even the dim and naive occasionally come up with a bright idea, and as has been mentioned before, combat is what this guy DOES. So even if there's not a particular amount of intelligence and creativity, there sure as heck can be a lot of craft.

So the short answer is no. The slightly longer answer is no, but of course it's situational. (e.g. Does having a low cha & a low dex mean my tank fighter can't dance very well. Probably, no matter how good the description is).

3) XP rewards
Q: should I reward my player for acting suboptimally in combat?

A: Pretty strong 'no' here. As DM, XPs are your brownie points. You've got some other sticks and carrots to dangle/beat your players with, but XP is the biggie. As has been mentioned, you condition your players to act suboptimally, they will, and it will become a contest to see who can tragically fail the best. RPing, in this case is its own reward, there's nothign to make up for.

The best way to encourage this is with NPC interactions. If one of your guys starts RPing an attribute, then respond in kind. E.g. if your Low-Int Barb decides that 'Charge!' is always the best tactic, then don't necessarily have the bad-guys act optimally. Maybe make them break and run before his fury from time to time. Or maybe his battle-cry is seen as a challenge, and the Orcish chieftain charges to meet him. The PC will love getting a rise out of the bad guys, either way, and as DM you're responding to the player's wish to have a more RP-laden combat.

Also, that makes the time when the baddies finally figure it out, and put a hidden spike pit trap between themselves and the charging barb, ever so much sweeter :)


Well, that's all I've got.

~R

LotharBot
2007-02-11, 07:15 PM
It's perfectly reasonable to give RP XP to characters whose combat tactics fit in with their character concept. I would be more inclined to give RP XP for their tactics being CONSISTANTLY in character than for doing something in character just once, though -- having the cowardly character back away from one fight out of a hundred isn't really "role-playing" so much as "accidentally doing something that matches your character concept", but having them back away from most fights is worth some XP. I'd also be willing to give RP XP to a character who played out their evolving tactics -- who got better at combat placement at level 10 than they were at level 2, for example, and made in-character remarks about it.

In terms of real-world combat, how much you can notice/do in 6 seconds depends an awful lot on how much training/practice you've had. My wife and I used to play video games like Descent (a 3D shooter) as a team, and we got to the point where we'd instinctively set up crossfires and such, not in a matter of 6 seconds but in a matter of perhaps half a second or so. We could regularly take down teams of much better players than us just because we worked better together. Some low-level classes probably shouldn't be good at setting up flanking, but any high-level character in a party that's been together for a while should have a good feel for how to do it (with some caveats based on INT/WIS.)

By level 10, "me too dumb to set up flanking" is no longer valid role-playing from anyone with 6 or more INT. By that level, they've seen it enough times to be able to do it. "I'm not a bold character, so I'm going to stay out of the fray" is good role-playing, but "I don't understand flanking even though I've been watching my party members do it for 10 levels" is not.

oriong
2007-02-11, 07:15 PM
Some good points, the discussion has fragmented a bit. I'd say I'm behind pretty much each of Roethke's points, with few exceptions.


(by the way I would totally play in an exalted game >.>)

Saph
2007-02-11, 08:06 PM
The best way to encourage this is with NPC interactions. If one of your guys starts RPing an attribute, then respond in kind. E.g. if your Low-Int Barb decides that 'Charge!' is always the best tactic, then don't necessarily have the bad-guys act optimally. Maybe make them break and run before his fury from time to time. Or maybe his battle-cry is seen as a challenge, and the Orcish chieftain charges to meet him. The PC will love getting a rise out of the bad guys, either way, and as DM you're responding to the players' wish.

This is a really good point, which I was going to mention earlier but forgot. :)

It's neither possible nor really fair to force the players to RP heavily in combat, so, when GMing, I've found that a better way to deal with it is just to have their opponents match them. So if the players go for RP-based actions instead of careful tactics, having their characters take actions which aren't that effective but which look like the right thing to do from the PC's perspective, then I'll have the monsters and NPCs do the same thing. The monsters will do stuff like hit the most obvious target, prioritise their own safety over killing the PCs, not finish off a wounded PC if other PCs are still up, etc. It's not really a 'reward', but it makes sure the PCs aren't penalised for roleplaying.

On the other hand, if the PCs use optimal tactics even when it isn't realistic, I'll have the monsters use optimal tactics even when it isn't realistic. It balances things out and hey, if they're into strategy, they're going to want a challenge, right?

- Saph

kamikasei
2007-02-11, 08:21 PM
Oh, for heaven's sake. Where did I say anything like that? The original question was 'Is it reasonable to give players credit for prioritising roleplaying over combat tactics?' and I said yes, and gave several examples as to why sub-optimal tactics are completely understandable as an in-character action due to how confusing and chaotic combat is. I also said that if you DO want to play a cool-headed strategist and always pull off the perfect manoevre, that's perfectly fine. I did not once say that you 'should not be allowed' to do anything. You're arguing with an imaginary opponent.

The example you gave as being "ridiculous and really irritating" was a quite straightforward maneuver on the part of one player designed to create a tactical opening for another player. This is not an elaborate plan that requires scads of communication or careful analysis in the heat of battle. It involves little more than moving. Hence my exaggeration of your position, because taken at your word the examples you didn't describe as "ridiculous and really irritating" were the ones where someone decided who to hit without any regard for what his teammates are doing.

The rules for combat are there precisely in order to describe what you can do in the heat of battle. If being in battle made it impossible to do, there wouldn't be rules for it. Now, sure it's possible to metagame and make elaborate maneuvers based on out-of-game knowledge and the ability to tell other players exactly what you want them to do without the monsters hearing. That's bad. On the other side, it can be commendable to have your character occasionally do something not tactically optimal for some roleplaying reason, as in the example the Giant gives in the gaming articles - charging your brother's killer without waiting for the wizard to buff or the rogue to flank, refusing to use the most suitable spell because the enemy does it and you want to prove your superiority, whatever. But saying that a fighter cannot use simple and intuitive tactics in battle or coordinate basic maneuvers with a teammate just because he has an Int penalty is unreasonable.

Saph
2007-02-11, 08:42 PM
But saying that a fighter cannot use simple and intuitive tactics in battle or coordinate basic maneuvers with a teammate just because he has an Int penalty is unreasonable.

Which also wasn't what I . . . oh, I give up. Go argue with imaginary Saph.

- Saph

kamikasei
2007-02-11, 08:52 PM
But saying that a fighter cannot use simple and intuitive tactics in battle or coordinate basic maneuvers with a teammate just because he has an Int penalty is unreasonable.
Which also wasn't what I . . . oh, I give up. Go argue with imaginary Saph.

- Saph

Well, looking at:


"I take one 5-foot step diagonally right, then make my attack against the first guy. Because of the initiative order, the second guy will have moved away by the time the rogue goes, but this guy won't have, which means he'll be able to tumble out of the square of the third guy and sneak attack the first guy." - tactically optimal, but ridiculous and really irritating.

Followed by:


There is no realistic way your low-Int PC would be able to work that out in the two-three seconds he has to think before attacking, all while fighting and keeping metagame concepts like initiative in mind.

What exactly were you saying, if not that a PC with an Int penalty couldn't use basic tactics? You describe the use of basic tactics, call it "ridiculous and really irritating", then say there's "no realistic way" a low-Int character could use them.

If you're saying I'm misinterpreting your words please explain how. If you feel you gave a poor example of what you were trying to represent please give a better.

Indon
2007-02-11, 10:53 PM
Draak think short word speak not bad like first post man think it is.

But yeah, I feel combat experience should dictate the degree of tactics displayed by characters. Personally, I'd run my characters based on what they know about a specific target (I know that goblins are crunchy-weak, so my Cleaving Barbarian will charge in and power attack a big crowd of them) if preferable, then resort to general character beyond that (my rogue is a cautious fellow, so he's going to ready his weapon, place himself, and not open fire just yet so he doesn't draw so much attention).

Mind that, if the NPC's aren't always running optimal attack strategies, then it may be best for a player to take actions that might influence how their opponents work; such as a soft-ish ranged character purposefully waiting for a tougher meleer to engage before opening fire, in the hopes of avoiding drawing fire himself. Of course, that sort of thing is situational.

Saph
2007-02-12, 08:00 AM
What exactly were you saying, if not that a PC with an Int penalty couldn't use basic tactics? You describe the use of basic tactics, call it "ridiculous and really irritating", then say there's "no realistic way" a low-Int character could use them.

This is getting silly. All right, since you seem so determined to get an answer, I'll give you one. Apologies to the original poster for going off-topic.

Kamikasei, I want you to try doing something for me.

You need to communicate a message to someone else. The message is "When I move to the left in a couple of seconds' time, stop fighting the guy you're fighting, break away from him towards me, go around the guy in between us, and stab the guy I'm fighting in the back." You need to communicate this message loudly enough for the other guy to hear it over all the shouts and crashing of a battle. You also need to get his attention in the process, since he's facing away from you and focused on the guy trying to kill him. Take into account also that the other guys can hear what you're saying, too, and if they understand the message they'll know what you're trying to do and the free guy in between the two of you will counter it. Finally, take into account the fact that you're in the middle of fighting someone yourself and can't take your eyes off him for more than a fraction of a second. And then after you've come up with this message, try saying it out loud.

Done? Are you sure that the message would be reliably understood and wouldn't need to be repeated? Okay.

Now look at your watch. How long did that take?

If it took longer than three seconds, you wouldn't have had time to do it in a D&D combat round. (And I'm not even taking into account the amount of time to judge the distances and think of the plan in the first place.) In other words, you just failed to pull off what you called a 'basic tactic'. See the point? You call these tactics 'basic' because you're not taking into account all the difficulties and confusion of a combat. You're looking down at the figures on the battle mat in the five minutes between combat rounds and thinking 'that's easy'. It isn't.

But if despite all this you think it IS that easy, and that your PCs SHOULD be able to do all that, you might have noticed that I suggested a way of dealing with that too. Just have the monsters do the same thing.

- Saph

MrNexx
2007-02-12, 09:39 AM
Draak think short word speak not bad like first post man think it is.

But yeah, I feel combat experience should dictate the degree of tactics displayed by characters.

Well, then you run into the sticky wicket of beginning characters technically have no experience.

Piedmon_Sama
2007-02-12, 11:15 AM
In response to Saph's illustration, I'd say that whole scenario is pretty silly.... they're basic tactics because they would take a minute to learn at most, even if the character had a low Int, people tend to pay attention when what they're learning could be the difference between life and death.

If you want to be a stickler, just have the Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian/Monk take a minute to go over "basic tactics" with the rest of the party. It will take a minute IC and probably a couple seconds OOC.

Besides, I'd assume that message would be communicated to a Rogue? In that case you wouldn't even need to say it. Rogues (and monks) already know to tumble, flank and strike. It's pretty much how they fight, unless you have an unusual concept. The archetypical party (Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Rogue) works like a well-oiled machine because each guy compliments each other just by doing what he would do on his own anyway. Their skills are designed to interlock.

On the other hand, I still see nothing wrong with intentionally making poor decisions if it's in keeping with your character. Real people aren't robots who always make the best choices, after all. I'd much rather play a flawed and interesting character over one who was static and perfect. But again, that's just a question of how your group likes to play.

Indon
2007-02-12, 12:43 PM
Well, then you run into the sticky wicket of beginning characters technically have no experience.

Depending on race and class, I do believe they have 1d4-4d6 years of learning the ropes, which depending on character might involve some basic tactics.

Not to mention, many people (even with training) freeze up the first time they see live combat. It may be completely in character for a wizard to hesitate to the point of losing his turn the first round (or two) of his first combat. Of course, this kind of thing doesn't really much happen, because people don't generally RP in combat and because most DM's let players take their sweet time in determining what to do.

Matthew
2007-02-12, 01:25 PM
I don't know that I agree Matthew, nothing I've seen of 3rd edition makes it more 'wargamey' than 2nd (I can't speak for earlier stuff though). In fact I'd say if anything 2nd edition was more war-gamish. I'd say the primary difference is that 3.x codifies a lot more actions, providing a single list of 'stuff you can do' which really isn't so much a move towards 'tactical wargame' as a move towards specificity.

Yes, as Nexx says, I didn't distinguish between 2.x Combat ad Tactics and 3.x. Both are a lot more concerned with precisely where everthing is in relation to everything else. When I first encountered D&D (and roleplaying in general) it was the fluidity and lack of precision that appealed (as opposed to the war games I played). Everything could be handled in the heads of the participants, which is how we played. Late 2.x and 3.x are when they started emphasising the model aspect of the game. My initial impression of the 3.0 PHB was how HeroQuesty (the Board Game version) it looked.

LotharBot
2007-02-12, 02:36 PM
You need to communicate a message to someone else..... -=snip=-

This depends in large part on who I'm trying to communicate with and how much we've worked together.

Before I married my wife, we lived in different states, but played Descent (a flight-based first-person-shooter video game) together. These were the days when voice chat software was uncommon at best. So all we had to go on was the way the other person moved their ship. She'd come into a room and make a particular maneuver, and I knew to spam the entryway with missiles, or to pull back and get ready to snipe someone, or to follow her into the next room. These were split-second decisions, made using only the simplest of visual cues, and we'd make them as expected the vast majority of the time.

In sports, especially pro sports, it's common for one of the players to be involved in on-field playcalling. In basketball, the point guard might hold up a hand to signal a particular type of rotation; in football, the quarterback might yell out a code word for a changed play; in baseball, the third base coach might tap/brush out a code to tell the runner to steal a base. In every case, the entire other team can hear or see the signal, but they don't know what it means because it's unique to this particular group.

I recently watched the Star Trek: TNG episode with the telepathic alien kidnappers who put Picard, a Starfleet cadet, a pacifist, and an anarchist all in a room and observed them. Towards the end of the episode, the telepathic aliens are talking about how words are such a primitive way to communicate... while Picard has managed to communicate "put up a forcefield and hold these guys here" to his crew with a glance and a few subtle movements.

Being familiar with one another, and with how you all react within particular situations, allows you to communicate instructions very quickly and simply, ESPECIALLY if you've specifically talked about them.

So, you've requested someone communicate the following: "When I move to the left in a couple of seconds' time, stop fighting the guy you're fighting, break away from him towards me, go around the guy in between us, and stab the guy I'm fighting in the back." I think you've overcomplicated the message -- all I really need to communicate is "come help with this guy" and then provide a clear opportunity; someone with rogue training will automatically understand flanking and sneak-attacks and avoiding AoO from the guy in between (though his player might be new enough to need reminded.) If my fellow rogue has been in my party for a while, I might need only to call out his name and then take my step, and he'll see the opportunity I'm presenting. Or I might call out his name and a code word like "turkey" to make it clearer what tactic I'm suggesting. In any case, it's something two combat-trained veterans will be able to communicate to each other quite easily.


You call these tactics 'basic' because you're not taking into account all the difficulties and confusion of a combat.

You discard the tactics' basicness because you're not taking into account the chemistry that develops between people who've trained, practiced, or gone through the same type of situation together many times.

That said, I think it would be fair to make your players communicate these things to each other in an in-character way -- instead of saying "I'm going to take a 5-foot step so you can come flank this guy", make them role-play "I call out for [party rogue] as I step aside" and then see if the party rogue siezes the opportunity. (If he's a new player, IMO, it's OK to remind him that he gets sneak attack damage if someone is flanked, and other basic mechanics his character would be aware of.)

Piedmon_Sama
2007-02-12, 02:51 PM
Yes, as Nexx says, I didn't distinguish between 2.x Combat ad Tactics and 3.x. Both are a lot more concerned with precisely where everthing is in relation to everything else. When I first encountered D&D (and roleplaying in general) it was the fluidity and lack of precision that appealed (as opposed to the war games I played). Everything could be handled in the heads of the participants, which is how we played. Late 2.x and 3.x are when they started emphasising the model aspect of the game. My initial impression of the 3.0 PHB was how HeroQuesty (the Board Game version) it looked.

Good point. One time when I played a short-lived campaign as a 1st-level Half-Orc Barbarian, I managed to miss a skeleton for three consecutive rounds before I finally knocked its block off with my greataxe. At the time I was just cursing the dice, but after the encounter I played it as my Barbarian freaking out during his first encounter with the undead and going into "wild swing" mode. He was incredibly leery of even the weakest undead after that, convinced they were surrounded by "bad mojo" that would rub off on him just for getting too close.

Saph
2007-02-12, 06:00 PM
Or I might call out his name and a code word like "turkey" to make it clearer what tactic I'm suggesting. In any case, it's something two combat-trained veterans will be able to communicate to each other quite easily.

Could be. I honestly doubt it, since it sounds like retroactive explanation to me, but you've made it sound reasonable, which is all that really matters if you're a player in that situation. It would depend if the PCs had ever actually said they were practising together (or had ever met each other before).

But like I've said, just have the monsters match the players and it evens out anyway.

- Saph

Legoman
2007-02-12, 06:11 PM
Description of combat that's considered 'too much' for PC's to handle.

Near the tail end of my 2 -on- 1 sparring sessions for Taekwondo, (A pretty weak martial art, TBH) this was exactly how we'd think. The basic moves, kicks, and blocks, are all abstracted - in fencing, I think parry-4, a parry-4 happens. Consciously, I'm watching his back foot and waiting for him to shift his weight so I can fleche'. The smaller details of parry/riposte are pretty much autopilot.

When it's 2-on-1, you think much more about your positioning, and the basics become even more abstracted. You don't even think about the moves you're throwing, you just see an open spot, and you hit it.

6 seconds is a long time when you're trained and in combat. It doesn't go by fast. You do have time to think. It's not nearly as confusing as you guys are making it out to be.

LotharBot
2007-02-12, 06:20 PM
I honestly doubt it, since it sounds like retroactive explanation to me

I suggest you reread my post, then. I wasn't making any retroactive argument, just describing analagous situations in which maneuvers or actions of a similar complexity as your example happen with only limited communication, due to experience.

Simply put, the longer a group has been together, the more likely they'll be able to read each other. If they're a level 10 party that's been together since level 1, I'd imagine something like "sneak attack this guy" would be incredibly easy to communicate.

A level 1 party in their first ever fight shouldn't be able to pull that off, but by level 3 or 4, there should be no difficulty whatsoever (even if your players aren't experienced enough to instinctively make those decisions.) And, of course, the same holds true for monsters -- if you're GM'ing a rival party that has been together for a while, they should work well together. If you're GM'ing a rival party that's been thrown together, they shouldn't read each other well. Monsters with INT 4 should pretty much just run into combat. And so on...

Saph
2007-02-12, 06:32 PM
I suggest you reread my post, then.

I did.


I wasn't making any retroactive argument, just describing analagous situations in which maneuvers or actions of a similar complexity as your example happen with only limited communication, due to experience.

I wasn't saying that you were - I meant that if a group of players said that, I'd think it was retroactive, especially since I don't think they'd pay any attention to how long their characters had been together. It's just to easy to retroactively justify whatever you want your character to do anyway . . . but like I said, it's not really fair to penalise players for it, either.

Which is why I prefer the 'matching' thing. Honestly, I think that's a lot more useful than trying to decide whether one particular instance can be justified or not. Just use the same standards for the monsters as the players use for their PCs.

- Saph

Josh Inno
2007-02-12, 06:46 PM
Well, similar to the nail situation, my halfling recently began hurling insults at his opponents.

"Is that your face? Or did someone cut out a patch of carpet!"

And one so off the wall that I can't recall it in my currently fatigued state, but it involved his mother, and the whole rest of his clan, while the blaggart was running away!

kamikasei
2007-02-12, 07:12 PM
This is getting silly. All right, since you seem so determined to get an answer, I'll give you one. Apologies to the original poster for going off-topic.

I'm "determined to get an answer" because I strongly disagree with what you've said and don't think you've adequately justified it. That's all. Since the whole thing pertains to how to roleplay combat it seems perfectly on-topic to me.


Kamikasei, I want you to try doing something for me.

You need to communicate a message to someone else. The message is "When I move to the left in a couple of seconds' time, stop fighting the guy you're fighting, break away from him towards me, go around the guy in between us, and stab the guy I'm fighting in the back." You need to communicate this message loudly enough for the other guy to hear it over all the shouts and crashing of a battle. You also need to get his attention in the process, since he's facing away from you and focused on the guy trying to kill him. Take into account also that the other guys can hear what you're saying, too, and if they understand the message they'll know what you're trying to do and the free guy in between the two of you will counter it. Finally, take into account the fact that you're in the middle of fighting someone yourself and can't take your eyes off him for more than a fraction of a second. And then after you've come up with this message, try saying it out loud.Ahem.

"Bob! Flank!"

Will that do?

Piedmon-sama and LotharBot have covered this, but: the purpose of the rogue is to flip out and sneak attack people. A rogue character should be constantly watching out for flanking opportunities if he's fighting with allies. Just getting his attention should be sufficient to implement the tactic.

There is nothing that says you can't maintain an awareness of where your allies are and what they're doing during combat. It's a terrible idea anyway to focus on your immediate opponent to the exclusion of the rest of the battlefield.

There is no way I know of that "the free guy in between the two of you will counter" a maneuver that isn't already covered in the rules for attacks of opportunity and tumbling (assuming the guy doesn't have a turn between you in initiative).

The difference in attitudes here I think is that you seem to be looking at what's involved in describing actions on the battle grid and trying to translate that directly into in-game actions; but characters don't need to tell each other to tumble past enemies or stop fighting their current target - consider: I'm at one side of a room assembling a bookshelf and my friend is sitting at the other, reading; he has the screwdriver I need beside him; do I say "hey Bob, could you stop reading, put down the book, stand up, pick up the screwdriver, cross the room, swerve around the chair, and hand it to me"? I say "hey Bob, screwdriver please" - and if we were fighting for our lives I'd be somewhat less polite about it.

I also note that your argument has moved away from addressing low-Int fighters and their ability to come up with ideas, and on to the difficulties of communicating in combat, which has little if anything to do with Int. Why the shifting of the goalposts?


But if despite all this you think it IS that easy, and that your PCs SHOULD be able to do all that, you might have noticed that I suggested a way of dealing with that too. Just have the monsters do the same thing. h...Yes? I do think that enemies (though not necessarily random encounters of monsters) should be using this sort of basic coordination, yeah. I think that should be the basic expectation for a halfway well-run combat.

edit:

Just use the same standards for the monsters as the players use for their PCs.

Okay, seriously - where is this coming from? Where did people suggest that the players get to use tactics but the enemies don't?

Roethke
2007-02-12, 07:49 PM
Gee oh goodness my, guys.

Here's the view from the peanut gallery. To summarize,

Kami, I think you've made your point clear. There are several reasons why limited communication in combat, even calling out fairly complex maneuvers, should be possible. Of course it's going to be campaign dependent-- In the Orc & Pie, scenario, for example, unless the bake shop is a military commissary (hey, that's a good idea!), there'd be little in game reason for that to hold. However, I don't think Saph is going to cry 'Uncle', as she or he doesn't buy those reasons in his or her games. And it doesn't have to hold. "See rule number 1", as they say. Why push the point?

And, all that being said, Saph's larger point still stands, if not so strongly as before. The players, taking their time, looking down at a battle-grid, have much more knowledge about the situation than the characters at eye-level (well, except for a diviner). I don't think there's any getting around that.

Leaving the DM's question "How should I address this?".

If you're playing strict "No OOC knowledge shall impinge on the pure simulation-y goodness of my campaign world" D&D, then you'd probably lean towards little-or no communication, and be suspicious of what look like coordinated actions on the PC's part.

If (like me) you've got budding strategists/reformed tabletop gamers in your party, you'll be more lax in letting PC's do what they want, whether you have an elaborate in-game justification, e.g. the party's name is Order of the Navy SEAL, or not.

Or somewhere in between. All this isn't to say that Good Roleplay = Bad Combat tactics. It's to address what to do when that happens to be the case.


Oh, and as an aside,


Quote:
Originally Posted by Saph http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2008037#post2008037)
Just use the same standards for the monsters as the players use for their PCs.

Okay, seriously - where is this coming from? Where did people suggest that the players get to use tactics but the enemies don't?
This came from Saph (& my) suggestion that the DM adjust the amount of non-optimal roleplaying in combat to match what the players seem to want. I very reasonable suggestion, if I don't say so, myself.

The idea being, that the DM is probably biased towards RPing (not always, but a decent assumption). If he's got personalities worked up for his villains and bad-guys, then they might not act optimally in combat. E.g., the coward quickly runs, the braggart charges blindly.
If the PC's seem to want to role-play their weaknesses, lack of communication, etc., then the DM should go that route with the baddies, rather than hand their arses to them by not role-playing in combat, and exploiting every tactical advantage to the hilt.

Conversely, if the PC's seem to want to tabletop, then the DM who hands them an way-too-easy encounter by making a tactical error (even if there is RP-justification) does the PC's a disservice. The classic example is the evil mastermind's monologue.

AoiRorentsu
2007-02-12, 08:33 PM
thanks Roethke for that very good distillation of that core arguments people have been making. I think both sides are right here- you absolutely can coordinate, and you can interpolate, but it should require at least a modicum of IC tactical planning- yeah, rogues will look for SA opportunities and know how to tumble, but definitely no retroactive "Oh yeah, uh, we totally planned this out beforehand" kind of thing IMO. Unless we're talking the very first encounter here, you're pretty much making stuff up to help you that is unfair.

That being said, Roethke points out a very important point about intentionally making monsters mess up as the DM for RPing purposes. The problem is knowing the difference between not coordinating and totally messing up (this is not to say the roethke makes that mistake, just that his post got me thinking).

I guess for me, a lack of coordination means basically everyone does what is most expedient for them without regard for their group- they see an enemy coming towards them, they engage that enemy. Whoever's got the biggest sword pointing at them at any given moment is the biggest threat, and it's the one that's got to be dealt with first, by either fight or flight. Thus, I would argue that until a wizard casts the spells, chances are uncoordinated, not-tremendously intelligent monsters will look for the biggest guy or the biggest weapon, and will each make an individual judgement call as to what to do about him. It probably depends on what they want- if they are are on a road and bandit-izing the PCs, chances are they will avoid the big badass in favor of the "weaker" people with the pointy hats who might have easily lootable bodies. If we're talking about the PCs invading their home, my bet is that (after properly taking advantage of their knowledge of the terrain, either intentionally or elsewise), they'd try to neutralize the biggest threat first. Of course, once the wizard drops a fireball on them, the game might change depending on how smart they are. I would generally suggest that Chaotic creatures or newly-formed groups are more likely to be uncoordinated.

As opposed an uncoordinated attack, a "mistake" (perhaps better if softened to "non-optimal strategy") is using the wrong tool for the job, or by doing anything other than maximizing your potential impact on the battle. The main ways to maximize your impact vary by class, but you always benefit by maximizing your own length of time on the battlefield. Thus, the "run away to fight another day" strategy is (probably) more optimal in the long run than the "desperate last stand," even though the latter might get you out of a pinch. An intelligent or experienced character, and one who has been in a group longer, is probably more likely to be aware of what his optimal strategy would be. I would imagine that alignment maybe has a little less to do with this, though Chaotic creatures would probably be more prone to "desperate last stand" than lawful.

This is what I originally meant by combat role-playing- I'm sorry I did a just awful job of explaining it at the start. Maybe I can cover myself by saying "Well what about this new aspect of combat role-play?"

Does any of this make sense/ is interesting?

Roethke
2007-02-12, 09:36 PM
Does any of this make sense/ is interesting?I think so. I like your way of putting 'uncoordinated' as 'The DM role-plays each monster individually'. Balancing that with the truly superior knowledge and power the DM has is a worthwhile topic.


I mean, the players can look down, and see the terrain and the monsters, but the DM can do all that, and he knows the players AC, HP, spells and magic items, nto to mention can make up monsters on the fly.

I know as a player, I can get really cheesed off if I think the DM is tuning encounters specifically to my weaknesses without at least a little in-game reason. Hasn't happened too much, but World's Largest Dungeon had a bit of that problem, if anybody's run it.

Roethke
2007-02-12, 09:43 PM
responding to a slightly different topic Aoi raised, (hence another post),

I think you're overstating the effect of alignment (of course with the usual caveat of DM is always right :).

My own bias is to use alignment as broad stroke behavior, rather than trying to be consistent in every specific situation. But even so...

Traditional interpretation of Lawful vs. Chaotic, at least as far as 'desperate last stand' goes, is that it's the Lawful ones who're more likely to go down with the ship. (I think there was even a morale table for 2nd or 3rd edition that codified this, but don't ask me to find it). I believe the thinking is that Lawful-types are more likely to give up the ghost for a cause/principle/what have you, takes a certain amount of discipline to do that too.

Anyhow, it's a gross oversimplification -- I'm reading the Janny Wurts Light & Shadow series right now, and for those who've seen it, Arithon is every bit as comitted as Lysaer, though the two pretty nicely exemplify law & chaos in a D&D-like setting

oriong
2007-02-12, 09:44 PM
I think that my biggest issue in this discussion is that many people (no one here in particular just a general trend I observe) see making 'bad' characters as somehow superior role-playing.

This is commonly expressed by people who want their characters to have flaws and so on. Obviously flaws can be just as entertaining as strengths to roleplay, and sometimes more so, but there are those who somehow see an obviously flawed character as a 'better character' than a less flawed one. This is fairly obviously untrue.

At first I got this same vibe from this discussion, the idea that a group that makes lots of mistakes and fumbles quite a bit is somehow 'role-playing better' than a group that works together well and deserving of reward for it. I think part of this comes from the idea that by hampering themselves they are somehow being selfless and enhancing the experience.

This is of course completely seperate from real roleplaying issues like metagame knowledge and OOC communication.

AoiRorentsu
2007-02-12, 10:07 PM
You raise a good point Roethke about alignment- I seem to recall a 2nd-edition rule to that effect, as well. I even figured while writing my last post that the Chaotic thing was probably a little weak- I just figured maybe it'd be a good discussion to have. I guess my logic would be that IMO lawful-types tend to have a more long-term viewpoint, so they would be more okay with ducking out in the short term to re-organize and come back later. But you're definitely right as well- I guess it can all be interepreted differently, eh?

As for the whole "my non-optimal character building is better role-playing than your super optimized to have infinite attacks per round character" debate---- that's sticky. I think that people tend to do what among the options they're aware of will most easily get them what they want. Optimization is a goal of all people- you want to study the least amount of time necessary to get an A (or whatever grade). You want to work the least amount that will allow you to keep your job or get you a promotion (if you want to move up). Call me a cynic, but it makes sense.

That being said, the average person does not have books upon books of feats, skill tricks (or whatever), spells, classes, and prestige classes, etc all listed out all handy-dandy along with a table neatly-presenting all of said information. Furthermore, most people do not like to change, either.

To simulate this distinction, I'd generallyprefer to make players do research in-game.

In order to find out about the swordsage class, you'd have to track down someone who's read or heard about or seen one. Could be a fun sort of mini-adventure...

oriong
2007-02-12, 10:26 PM
Well, at this point I'm not even speaking about uber-optmized versus sub-optimized, I'm talking about sub-optimized vs. the dead average.

For example let's take two wizards: both are blasters, neither is terribly optimized in terms of spell selection. One guy decides to give his wizard one eye, bad aim, or just a shaky spell-finger which translates to his character perhaps intentionally (from a player perspective) missing some spells, or catching the party (even himself) in the area of a spell meant for the enemies because of 'bad aim'. Now even aside from the issue of being a jerk by damaging your party for your 'concept' the guy who flubs is not somehow a better roleplayer than the guy who lands his fireballs where they're supposed to go just because he does what he does badly.

Roethke
2007-02-12, 10:59 PM
Oriang- right. It's good to point outthat flaws/bad tactician does not necessarily equal good RP. But on this thread the question has been from the other direction-- what happens when good RP DOES equal bad tactics.

I think the example from the beginning of the thread was "Should my raging barbarian use his bow, or charge right in?"

From a pure damage dealing standpoint, the answer is obvious. Given a set of assumptions about berserker/barabarian type, an RP answer is also obvious and opposite (yes, I know cases can be made in both directions, but that's not the point).

By choosing to charge right in, the barbarian 'hurts' the party-- they may lose a tank sooner, have to risk a cleric to heal him, etc. But it also opens up other RP-options e.g. what happens when he gets captured.

And of course, the real answer comes down to 'what kind of campaign am I in'/'Don't be a jerk'. If the barb charges in, spoiling the groups plans to be an attention hog, probably not a good thing. Ditto, if folks are playing a very tactical game, and you ruin it for them.

For your 2 wizards, you have a point-- but I love Discworld as much as the next guy, and given the right group of people, a Rincewind-type character could be a blast to play. But everybody's got to be in on the joke. Rincewind was sort of a self-centered, cowardly jerk a lot of the time.

oriong
2007-02-12, 11:12 PM
Right, my main opposition isn't that these sorts of guys shouldn't exist (although I don't support blasting your own party) just that it's unfair to put the wizard who hurts himself up on a pedestal (say, through extra RP xp), especially since the guy who plays competently is by no means necessarily role-playing less.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-12, 11:13 PM
Oriong is right.

http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/1168702253-1167481579703.png

kamikasei
2007-02-13, 01:59 AM
Okay - let me start from scratch here, with reference to the OP. This may rehash points I or others have covered already, but I figure it's a clearer way to explain where I'm coming from than just responding to other posters.


Howdy! This issue came up in a previous thread I started, and I thought it merited its own separate discussion. That is to say, role-playing in combat. Do you guys think its doable? sensible? all overly too-much to think about-able? Inquiring minds want to know!!!!

Yes, it's doable and desirable. It's a role-playing game, after all. A character may behave quite differently in combat than most of the rest of the time, which is perfectly natural, but his personality shouldn't just switch off and he become a clockwork battle bot. However, remember that a character's combat abilities are a part of who he is and how he should be played just as much as his social skills, background etc. If a character behaves a certain way in combat then his combat abilities should reflect that; if he has abilities but never uses them, why does he have them? (This applies most strongly to abilities gained through leveling, but I don't see much point in taking race or class options you'll never use, either. If you want to play a cleric who will absolutely never wear armour, find a variant or work one out with your DM.)

In general, if your character concept includes some quirk, alter your build to support it.


1) my 9th-level fairly intelligent fighter, who also has an MBA :roy:, is an experienced enough combatant to know that if you and an ally are fighting the same opponent, it's best to get on opposite sides of him to divide his attention (handy +2 to attack!). My 1st-level cleric, who up until this point has spent his entire young-adult life cloistered in a temple somewhere studying ancient religious texts, doesn't. Unless someone told him to, it might take him a couple combats to figure it out. Should the player get RP-XP for consciously (as in, he drops the suggestion that he's) not meta-gaming and instead standing next to the party fighter? Should the fighter get RP-XP for shouting at the cleric to move into a flanking position?

Well, firstly, the issue is slightly muddied by the comparison of a 9th-level fighter to a 1st-level cleric. Let's think about a 9th- and 1st-level fighter instead for a minute. The 9th-level guy will have a higher BAB etc. to represent his greater individual fighting skill. He may have higher knowledge skills to reflect his greater familiarity with various enemies and what works against them. Depending how you got him to 9th level, he may already have a rapport built up with a team of fellow adventurers, or at the very least have experience of working on a team and how best to organize a battle with casters, support characters etc. These are all reasonable advantages to give him over the 1st-level guy. I don't think something like "I should flank" is something he should know and the other not, though. Consider that the 9th-level guy has also acquired a number of special abilities which expand his tactical options - Trip, Knockdown, Bull Rush, and so on. I would say his greater tactical ability is adequately represented by having these abilities and knowing how to use them. To my way of thinking a 1st-level fighter should reasonably be expected to know, in character, every rule of combat that he can take advantage of. Combat is what he does. His inexperience is adequately represented by his limited options; not knowing how to use the options he does have seems like hamstringing him unnecessarily.

Now, for the 1st-level cleric, it's a little different. Firstly I have a bit of a problem with the idea of a cleric who's spent all his time reading spellbooks and praying; how does that gibe with a 3/4ths BAB, armour proficiencies, etc.? This is what I meant when I was talking above about matching abilities to concept; if your cleric is so non-martial, see if you can adapt him, into a cloistered cleric or something similar.

Now, what might work from a roleplaying perspective is a cleric who's been taught how to use a weapon, move in armour etc but not how to fight in a group. Roleplaying having the party fighter barking at him how to maneuver, or the crafty rogue or wizard working out with him the best way to buff or cast before the battle, would be a solid addition to play; but I would have him pick up the basics very quickly in character, or it would surely become annoying. I would strongly discourage being suboptimal in combat for the sake of bonus XP, but encouraging them to play out having to coach each other in viable strategies would deserve XP, I would say.


2) My barbarian doesn't understand the meaning of the word "tactics" (in fact, with that Int of 6 and illiteracy, he's pretty much confined to monosyllabic words). When he sees a line of lightly-armored, not very agile guys sauntering towards him, he screams "Screw you, bow!" and charges directly into the middle of the enemy group with the justification "So I can throw a punch at all of them!." (he doesn't have whirlwind attack)

In a solo encounter, that's a perfectly legitimate move for the barbarian to make. In a party encounter, if the rest of the team know he does this sort of stuff and can deal with it, it's also legitimate. If he's consistently hurting the team by making stupid blunders in combat, have the team play out beating him with the cluebat; you say he's, er, slow, so have the party tactician make it clear that he does what he's told or he'll be penalized. After the first couple times getting creamed by the enemy because of a bad move on his part he'll learn to listen.

I guess the key point in both of these cases is for a character with a legitimate in-character reason not to know the best move to make to learn quickly, even if all he learns is to listen to the smarter or more experienced character.

The other side of this is what the DM's throwing at the players. Different monsters should be played differently; a handful of normally solitary monsters should fight as uncoordinated individuals, a troop of kobolds should flank and maneuver, etc. The difficulty of the encounters should be scaled not only to the party's level but also to their effectiveness; if you know they don't act in perfect mechanical unison, don't throw them into an encounter where playing less than perfectly will get them killed. Accomplish this by having weaker enemies fight tactically in preference to having strong enemies flounder; and try to maintain verisimilitude in your enemies' behaviour, so that they fight as much in-character as the PCs.

Otherwise I echo Oriong's comments about playing a deliberately hobbled character because it's 'more authentic'. It's not really. If you play your cleric as not knowing which end of a sword goes in the other guy and being a bit clueless about which spell he should cast, to the point that he's half the combat effectiveness he should be, then play an Adept. :smalltongue:

AoiRorentsu
2007-02-13, 02:43 AM
Consider that the 9th-level guy has also acquired a number of special abilities which expand his tactical options - Trip, Knockdown, Bull Rush, and so on. I would say his greater tactical ability is adequately represented by having these abilities and knowing how to use them.

I generally agree with all of your arguments- my response is more of a question. A couple of times, people have said that the higher level fighter has acquired Trip, Knockdown, Bull Rush et al. Knockdown aside, I was under the impression that you don't need feats/levels at all to be able to Bull Rush, Charge, Feint, Disarm, Trip, Sunder etc etc other characters- the feats just make it easier. Therefore, the 1st level fighter who took exotic weapon proficiency and weapon focus (or any other feats not related to these specific "moves") should be just as able to try to do these things as a 9th-level fighter, though obviously will not be as good at it.

Am I misinterpreting your statement?

kamikasei
2007-02-13, 02:57 AM
I generally agree with all of your arguments- my response is more of a question. A couple of times, people have said that the higher level fighter has acquired Trip, Knockdown, Bull Rush et al. Knockdown aside, I was under the impression that you don't need feats/levels at all to be able to Bull Rush, Charge, Feint, Disarm, Trip, Sunder etc etc other characters- the feats just make it easier. Therefore, the 1st level fighter who took exotic weapon proficiency and weapon focus (or any other feats not related to these specific "moves") should be just as able to try to do these things as a 9th-level fighter, though obviously will not be as good at it.

Hmm, you're correct, I'm in error here. I'm thinking in terms of CRPGs where you can't perform the action at all without the feat.

I suppose you could think of taking feats to improve your chances (specifically eliminating the attacks of opportunity provoked, which seems to be the general benefit of these feats) as representing gaining competence with managing the tactics involved; but you're right, it weakens my case. I guess it's a question of higher-level characters having these attacks open to them as viable options they can incorporate into a tactical plan, whereas for lower-level characters they're more moves of desperation.

Saph
2007-02-13, 06:37 AM
The idea being, that the DM is probably biased towards RPing (not always, but a decent assumption). If he's got personalities worked up for his villains and bad-guys, then they might not act optimally in combat. E.g., the coward quickly runs, the braggart charges blindly.

If the PC's seem to want to role-play their weaknesses, lack of communication, etc., then the DM should go that route with the baddies, rather than hand their arses to them by not role-playing in combat, and exploiting every tactical advantage to the hilt.

Conversely, if the PC's seem to want to tabletop, then the DM who hands them an way-too-easy encounter by making a tactical error (even if there is RP-justification) does the PC's a disservice. The classic example is the evil mastermind's monologue.

Yup, this is a better way of saying what I meant - good summary.

- Saph

Were-Sandwich
2007-02-13, 06:44 AM
Oriong is right.

http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/1168702253-1167481579703.png
Off topic, but that picture is made of win.

Roethke
2007-02-13, 07:50 AM
I guess the key point in both of these cases is for a character with a legitimate in-character reason not to know the best move to make to learn quickly, even if all he learns is to listen to the smarter or more experienced character.

The underlying assumption here is that the goal is to be as effective as possible in combat. D&D 3.5 combat is setup to be able to be played as a miniature wargame. There almost always is an optimal move for a set of circumstances. But there's a lot of territory between intentionally making stupid mistakes, and not playing optimally.

And, as I mentioned before, it's resolving the PC knowledge looking down at the battlemat with the character knowledge 'in the heat of combat' that's the issue.

Sure, some uncanny ability for each player to choose the optimal move can be explained by the character's drilling together, or knowing each other well enough or anything. But that's a decision that's up to the DM, and shouldn't necessarily be expected.

Kind of a tangent example, one of the hardest combat RPing thing to resolve is being deafened. Usually it happens in the middle of combat, and the mechanical penalties are relatively light. But RP-wise I'd bet it's quite disorienting. Looking down at a battlemat, still being able to talk OOC, it doesn't have too much of an impact. In my vision of how it should affect a combat, it should.

As DM, I'd be happy if players viewed deafening as "Oh my god, I can't hear anything. Is it permenent?", rather than "Oh crap, 20% arcane spell failure and -4 initiative".

The latter is definitely most likely to be more useful in combat.

And, to answer, of course the PC's could have trained by banging pots over each others heads so they know ahead of time what it's like, and maybe they have sign-language all prepared. But, as I said before, while I assume the PC's are competent, I don't think they're all SEALs. (though that may work for some campaigns).

Swordguy
2007-02-13, 10:07 AM
A good way to view this whole debate is by looking at the actions of PCs in combat-based (usually boffer) LARPs. That's about as close as you'll get to a
"real-life" set of circumstances that matches what we see in D&D (there's no flying or teleportation, but everything else in SOLAR or NERO tends to match up fairly well).

By a study of what PCs are able to do in RL circumstances when time really does matter (as opposed to spending 5 minutes at the tabletop thinking about the order you wish to make your attacks in), you might be able to achieve a better understanding of how PCs in a tabletop game should be reacting in combat.

Cobra
2007-02-13, 01:41 PM
PC's should choose to roleplay in combat or not, as they choose.

But, NPC's should ALWAYS roleplay in combat. Most monsters are going to be overconfident, since 99.9% of the humans they've faced were all soft and squishy. They don't know that they are facing humans with LOTS of class levels.

Quietus
2007-02-13, 01:49 PM
I think it's reasonable for a low-level character who hasnt' acquired those feats to USE those options, but they would do so sparingly - they haven't practiced the necessary movements, and they KNOW they give themselves an opening (the AoO involved in most of these). They would only use those options in certain situations, usually when they have an extremely good chance of pulling it off - disarming the enemy rogue of his dagger with your greatsword, for example, or bullrushing a caster. It would be more rare for someone who knows that they CAN use these techniques, but who hasn't practiced them, to try and go head-to-head with another skilled melee fighter and attempt to use them unless there's a clear advantage, like, say, a cliff directly behind them - it might be worth risking the AoO for an opportunity to push them back and off of that. Or if they have a weapon that's clearly superior, that acts as a crutch - removing that weapon might become a necessity.