PDA

View Full Version : DM Help How to handle two players with vastly different strategic capabilities?



ElenionAncalima
2014-09-15, 09:48 AM
I run a game with two players, each with two characters. For the most part this game goes really well and everyone seems to have fun. However, a problem I have been noticing for a little while, ended up resulting in a character death last session.

Player A really likes strategically involved encounters. Nothing gets him invested in the game faster than giving him a problem that looks unsolvable. Sometimes his gambits catch me off guard, but for the most part I enjoy it when he enters planning mode. As a result, his characters actively seek out challenging encounters.

Player B, mostly doesn't seem to mind this (although sometimes she is the important voice of reason, when his plans are unnecessarily risky). However, when it comes to participating in these types of encounters, it becomes clear that she does not have a great mind for strategy and tactics. Not only is she not good at adjusting tactics during combat when unexpected things happen, but she also seems to have trouble following a strategy when things are going well.


There are a lot of cases where this has reared its ugly head, but this was the most problematic:

As optional sidequests, the PCs have a list of bounties that they can keep an eye out for. They realized that three of their bounties (3 Troll Siblings) were in the nearby caves.

Through research, the party figured out the following things about the trolls:
-They are stronger than normal trolls and would likely beat the party in melee combat.
-They only fight with natural attacks, so they have no ranged response.
-They are remarkably stupid, even for trolls
-They have a fascination with shoes, to the point when they could easily be led into a trap by them.
-They have terrible will saves.

They spend pretty much the whole session planning for this encounter. The strategy:
-Recruit several allies.
-Find an ambush site, then lure the trolls to it.
-Have hidden archers and spellcasters (using will resisted spells) ambush the trolls from higher ground.
-Have one melee PC with AC buffed to ridiculous levels use shoes to bait the trolls into attacking only them (ended up being one of player A's characters)
-Have the rest of the melee fighters join the fray once the trolls are focused on the buffed PC.
-Use fire arrows or acid spash cantrip to finish off the trolls once they fall into the negatives. (each player and two npcs, were given 1 fire arrow. They all decided to give them to an archer NPC, except for Player B's wizard who kept one)

This plan starts out spectacularly well. Surprise round, plus bad initiative rolls for the trolls means the PCs and most of their allies get two turns in a row. One of the trolls gets taken down before any of the enemies got to act. However, Player B's weak understanding of the strategy starts to show. During the surprise round, as the wizard, she declares that she uses her bow and fire arrow. Both myself and player A give her a surprised look and I ask if she is sure thats what she wants to do. She catches on slightly and instead decides to use Command (she had far more crippling will save spells, but at least it was a will save spell).

The buffed PC moves forward a bit, but doesn't enter into melee range with them, since they are still getting a beat down from the archers and spellcasters and need to waste their turn moving to reach the ground fighters. At this point Player A decides to have her Druid and animal companion (both have 50ft speed) charge the two remaining trolls. She gets full attacked and doesn't survive the round.

The rest of the fight goes pretty smoothly (despite the wizard not really using any will spells). But the PC death definitley put a damper on victory, that would have been gloat worthy.

I don't want player A to feel like he is overly limited. I have already had to talk to him, because sometimes his solution to this problem is to do things by himself...but I'm not okay with one player sitting out and watching another person play for an extended amount of time.

As for Player B, we all sometimes play with another guy who make it his mission to point out every little mistake she makes (sometimes when she isn't even doing anything wrong), so I know she can be sensitive to this kind of criticism. Also, I generally find explaining these things to her doesn't really help much. She will be agreeable and claim to understand, but doesn't really process the information in a way that improves her game.

tl;dr; - How do you build interesting challenges and encounters for two players who are strategizing at two very different levels, so that both players can have fun.

aberratio ictus
2014-09-15, 10:47 AM
Judging from your example, I don't think the encounter itself was the problem. It seems like she simply wasn't told about the plan/didn't understand. As that particular plan was fairly... basic, I guess it is the first.

I'd suggest you encourage player A to involve player B in his planning. As she has been the much-needed voice of reason before, as you claim, this might even be beneficial.

Once she's been made aware of the reasoning of the different points of player A's plan and knows what her role in the plan is, she's probably not going to charge in or attack with spells their victims aren't particularly vulnerable to.

Vitruviansquid
2014-09-15, 11:20 AM
Players are generally good at the parts of the game that interest them.

Have you considered that the part of DnD where you receive difficult challenges and then plan how to overcome them... just isn't incredibly interesting to player B?

Ask yourself what player B wants out of the game, or even ask her directly.

Sith_Happens
2014-09-15, 11:38 AM
The example is less "doesn't have a good head for planning" and more "forgot/deliberately ignored the plan." The two things are related but not necessarily equivalent.

Jornophelanthas
2014-09-15, 12:49 PM
I get the impression that Player B got distracted during the (extensive) planning of the encounter. I think it's likely that she zoned out while Player A was gathering allies, creating contingency plans, buying shoe-bait, etc.
In effect, her experience would be: "There was lots and lots of talking, and then my Wizard got handed a fire arrow, with the message to use it on one of the trolls."

My advice:
1. Ask her if she enjoys the way the planning stages of the game sessions play out. If she doesn't, ask her what specifically does interest her. Tone down the frequency of planning that is required a little (but leave enough in so that Player A can still get his fix), and add more of the stuff that interests her.

2. When the planning is done, encourage Player A to let his characters give a (concise) summary of the plan to Player B's characters, with special emphasis on everything Player B's characters are supposed to do and expect. (And not to elaborate on everything else that he has orchestrated.)
So do not let him say: "Here are some fire arrows to use on the trolls. And you got the rest, right?"
Instead, have him say: "Okay, here's the plan. We lure the trolls out to this spot, and I will signal the attack. Wizard B, you need to do X, Y and Z. Other Character B, you need to do P, Q and R. And as soon as a troll is struck down, one of us needs to shoot a fire arrow at it."

aberratio ictus
2014-09-15, 01:00 PM
2. When the planning is done, encourage Player A to let his characters give a (concise) summary of the plan to Player B's characters, with special emphasis on everything Player B's characters are supposed to do and expect. (And not to elaborate on everything else that he has orchestrated.)
So do not let him say: "Here are some fire arrows to use on the trolls. And you got the rest, right?"
Instead, have him say: "Okay, here's the plan. We lure the trolls out to this spot, and I will signal the attack. Wizard B, you need to do X, Y and Z. Other Character B, you need to do P, Q and R. And as soon as a troll is struck down, one of us needs to shoot a fire arrow at it."

This is very sound advice.

The first point and what Vitruvian said should really go without saying, but it might be a problem, still. We don't have any information about that yet.

icefractal
2014-09-15, 01:15 PM
Also, there's the possibility that she doesn't like it when things go too smoothly for the PCs - some players don't.

Personally, I like sometimes getting the high ground and facerolling the opposition, because a plan coming together is fun, and besides, we may end up being the ones ambushed next session. But some people I've played with, a battle where the PCs are winning with no danger really bugs them. They feel like it's taking all the excitement out of the game.

So, you may want to ask if that's the case.

ElenionAncalima
2014-09-15, 02:05 PM
Just to clarify, since this was mentioned by a few people, she was involved in the planning.

The gathering of supplies and allies, actually didn't take much game time. The bulk of the planning session was spent decided what spells to prepare for the following day. As she was playing both of the prepared casters, she was a big part of this conversation. She provided about half the buffs for the PC who was supposed to draw fire and she went out of her way to copy will effecting spells from an NPC wizard's spellbook. Also, I can say from past experiences that choosing spells for a big fight is one of her favorite things to do.

I have seen her when she is completely disinterested in a game, but it didn't seem like that was the case. If anything, it seemed like excitement clouded her judgement. She charged the two trolls when the other went down because she thought "Hey! We're winning!", but she didn't take into account why they were winning. I know from one example it might seem like boredom or distraction are a factor, but I've know this person for 12 years and played with her under three other DMs. I can say with certainty that she genuinely struggles with combat strategy.

She doesn't seem to hate combat. Most of the time she gets really into it...its just giving her tough encounter is kind of like playing russian roulette.


When the planning is done, encourage Player A to let his characters give a (concise) summary of the plan to Player B's characters, with special emphasis on everything Player B's characters are supposed to do and expect. (And not to elaborate on everything else that he has orchestrated.)
So do not let him say: "Here are some fire arrows to use on the trolls. And you got the rest, right?"
Instead, have him say: "Okay, here's the plan. We lure the trolls out to this spot, and I will signal the attack. Wizard B, you need to do X, Y and Z. Other Character B, you need to do P, Q and R. And as soon as a troll is struck down, one of us needs to shoot a fire arrow at it."

This is a good idea and something that I may have to implement. The only problem I see is that she has a tendancy to automatically agree, but not really process what you are saying. As such, I may take it a step further and ask both players to describe their characters' role in the plan. That way if the two are out of sync they can talk it out.

Sith_Happens
2014-09-15, 02:54 PM
Also, there's the possibility that she doesn't like it when things go too smoothly for the PCs - some players don't.

"Active sabotage" is not the proper way to fix that, though.

Jornophelanthas
2014-09-15, 06:16 PM
The only problem I see is that she has a tendancy to automatically agree, but not really process what you are saying.

This is why my suggestion did NOT include the phrase "So do you understand the full extent of the plan?" because that would be followed by an auto-pilot "Yes".
She sounds like the type of player who will always agree with any fellow player or DM who asks her something. It's not important if this is because of inattention, a desire to please, insecurity or anything else. It all amounts to a situation where if you ask a leading question, you will get exactly the answer you want to hear.
This makes it hard to uncover any issues she may have with a game, because she will deny having any. Still, if you know her well enough to tell from her non-verbal behaviour that she is enjoying herself, everything is fine.

Rondodu
2014-09-15, 08:35 PM
tl;dr; - How do you build interesting challenges and encounters for two players who are strategizing at two very different levels, so that both players can have fun.

I would try to focus the game on aspect that involve both players. The side quest at hand here seems to be tailor-made for one of your players with little respect for the other player interest.

Moreover, I say let your player screw plans up; don’t play in their stead. Don’t raise an eyebrow on their actions unless they clearly don’t understand a situation (“When I say ‘the children are hard at work’, I mean they’re helping preparing the meal,not that the place is a sweatshop!”), or they do something utterly ridiculous (“Wait, what? You’re pulling your sword out because she walked on your foot?”) or incompatible with the game you’re trying to master (“What do you mean ‘I set fire to the whole city’?”). Not sticking to the established tactics when in the field, be that because the situation changed or because the players are screwing up, is to be expected, and, quite frankly, might very well be the best part of the game.

Vitruviansquid
2014-09-16, 12:00 AM
If you're absolutely certain your players are having fun, then I say just sit back and let nature take its course.

The weak perish, the strong survive. :|

prufock
2014-09-16, 07:04 AM
tl;dr; - How do you build interesting challenges and encounters for two players who are strategizing at two very different levels, so that both players can have fun.

1. Talk to Player A, and note that Player B has a different playstyle than him. Suggest that Player A's plans try to incorporate Player B's style and strengths. After all, Brains and Brawn is a classic team makeup.

2. The two-pronged approach. While this wouldn't have worked with your trolls, because they're stupid, don't forget that the enemies can plan and adapt as well. While the plan may seem to be going as scripted, the enemy may have a second team that is circling around to surprise the PCs, and this might give Player B a chance to break the plan and still shine. Remember "no plan survives first contact with the enemy."

Jay R
2014-09-16, 07:42 AM
This is not a DM problem; this is a player problem. Player A needs to learn to give player B something easy to understand and remember.


1. Talk to Player A, and note that Player B has a different playstyle than him. Suggest that Player A's plans try to incorporate Player B's style and strengths. After all, Brains and Brawn is a classic team makeup.

Exactly. In the Avengers movie, for the final fight scene, Captain America gave careful detailed tactical orders to Thor, Iron Man, Hawkeye, and the Black Widow. He then turned to the Hulk and said, "Hulk - smash!"

You need to convince Player A that understanding each ally's advantages and disadvantages is part of creating the perfect plan, and convince him to plan like Captain America. Make it a fun part of being the great strategist he wants to be.

Nobot
2014-09-16, 08:03 AM
(...) During the surprise round, as the wizard, she declares that she uses her bow and fire arrow. Both myself and player A give her a surprised look and I ask if she is sure thats what she wants to do. She catches on slightly and instead decides to use Command (she had far more crippling will save spells, but at least it was a will save spell).



(...) The only problem I see is that she has a tendancy to automatically agree, but not really process what you are saying. As such, I may take it a step further and ask both players to describe their characters' role in the plan. That way if the two are out of sync they can talk it out.

From these two quotes, it seems like your player is perhaps a bit easily overtaken by the other player, perhaps even a bit insecure?

If that is indeed the case, you could advise her (in a one-on-one conversation) to speak up a little bit more and then try to encourage that behaviour in the game.

Alternatively (and more subtly), I've gotten some good results by asking insecure players to be "senior player" in a group of people newly introduced to tabletop RPG's. When comparing themselves to these new players, they will discover how much they already know about the game and how skilled they already are. It usually builds confidence which is carried on to sessions in other campaigns.

Good luck!

(New to the forum, I like it already!)

ElenionAncalima
2014-09-16, 09:10 AM
From these two quotes, it seems like your player is perhaps a bit easily overtaken by the other player, perhaps even a bit insecure?



You are completely right. It is something she is aware of and we are working on.

That's one of the reasons why I don't want to come down on her too hard. In other games (particularly with the killer DM I alluded to in my first post) she has been known to completely shut down. In his games she tends to not talk at all unless called on and even then just repeats someone else or the general party consensus.

She was actually the one who encouraged me to DM this game, because I generally try to go a lot easier on her. As a result, she is much more outgoing. The fact that she will sometimes tell Player A that his ideas are bad is an achievement unto itself. When it comes to roleplaying we have a "meet me half way" deal. I expect her to speak up and interact, but I don't go out of my way to punish her for badly worded statements or little faux pas. Its just tougher to go easier on her in combat because:
a) I also have an obligation to make the game fun for Player A too.
b) Combat has definitive numbers, so unless I fudge to save her, those numbers can be a cruel mistress.

Nobot
2014-09-16, 09:57 AM
You are completely right. It is something she is aware of and we are working on.

That's one of the reasons why I don't want to come down on her too hard. In other games (particularly with the killer DM I alluded to in my first post) she has been known to completely shut down. In his games she tends to not talk at all unless called on and even then just repeats someone else or the general party consensus.

She was actually the one who encouraged me to DM this game, because I generally try to go a lot easier on her. As a result, she is much more outgoing. The fact that she will sometimes tell Player A that his ideas are bad is an achievement unto itself. When it comes to roleplaying we have a "meet me half way" deal. I expect her to speak up and interact, but I don't go out of my way to punish her for badly worded statements or little faux pas. Its just tougher to go easier on her in combat because:
a) I also have an obligation to make the game fun for Player A too.
b) Combat has definitive numbers, so unless I fudge to save her, those numbers can be a cruel mistress.

Okay! well, I've known players that shut down too. If they shut down too much and don't improve, they usually leave the game after some time (or find another group). I understand that you as a game master feel the responsibility to make it fun for everyone, but the responsibility is the players' too :smallsmile: The overly insecure player needs to learn to speak up and the overly dominant player needs to learn to chill (assuming he is overly dominant).

And, if I interpret everthing correctly, I think you're already doing your part... You could try to build her confidence by involving her in a group of 'noobs' or involve a third player with a personality somewhere in between the two players.