Does having good tactical sense make you better at roleplaying?

[TarkXT]

So I already discussed this a bit in a somewhat rambly blog post. (https://pathfindertactics.wordpress.com/2015/01/09/does-having-good-tactics-make-you-better-at-roleplaying/)

But, I wanted to bring it here to have an actual discussion on it.

Because, while there are rather lively and tired debates on the stormwind fallacy I rarely see talk about how sometimes we refuse to be smart in combat because it's not in-character.

[Vhaidara]

It depends on what character you're playing.

I had an intelligent melee combatant (used a custom mix of scout and fighter), but I had a flaw called Solitary Paragon that gave me a -4 for flanking (net -2 to my attack rolls). I had this because he had spent most of his life as a solo gladiator, so it threw him off when people tried to help. Because of this, when I had the opportunity to move into a position by making a tumble check that would allow the party barbarian to 5ft step into a flank, I didn't.

The rest of my party was FURIOUS with me. Like, actually spent 15 minutes trying to get me to move into that position, not seeming to understand that it just didn't fit my character to even think of providing a benefit to an ally (we had been a party for like 3 weeks in game, 1 of which was recovery for the barbarian from poison). They argued that I could 5ft step out of the flank on my next turn, and that we would dance around the enemy, me not flanking, him flanking. I again responded with that my character doesn't consider that.

Basically, I chose to have my character NOT take a tactical advantage because it didn't fit his personality.

[Troacctid]

Being good at tactics absolutely makes you better at roleplaying. Understanding the risks and rewards associated with the moves you're making allows you to modulate your tactics to fit the style that best suits your character.

Besides, if you're bad at tactics, how are you supposed to roleplay a character who's good at tactics?

[rockdeworld]

Rather than read the rambly blog post, I'm just going to ask what you mean by roleplaying.

The OP makes me think you mean that making bad decisions in combat is roleplaying, in which case having good tactical sense absolutely makes you a better roleplayer, because you know which options are bad and can choose to take them, rather than having a random chance of doing something good or something bad.

On the other hand, if by roleplaying you mean something more like "acting in character", then I don't think it makes much of a difference. Without tactical sense, calm characters' PCs can say their character acts calm, aggressive characters' PCs can say they act aggressive, conflicted character's PCs can say they're struggling to find the right action, etc.

At the end of the day, we're playing a game. All DMs being equal, players who play well tend to have longer-lived characters, and vice versa. (Off-topic, sorry) If your definition of roleplaying is for fighters to have good tactical sense, wizards to know a lot about their world, diplomats to be good at speaking, and clerics to be pious, it seems to me the standard gaming group is always going to be bad at roleplaying, regardless of how good they are at surviving the game.

Edit: Lastly, if your definition of good roleplaying is "participating in the story the DM created" then anyone can be good at roleplaying, again regardless of tactical sense. And that's more like the definition I use.

Also, I think Keledrath's example of roleplaying shows how roleplaying can be used to justify frustrating the other people at the table, which I regard as a bad thing, if you believe that having low int/chronic backstabbing disorder means you have to play your character as not-a-team-player.

[Necroticplague]

No. You're ability to play a convincing character is a type of acting (in term, a sub-section of interacting), and is a separate skill from tactics, a form of economics (a sub-section of statistics). The only real way they correlate is that playing the game for a while typically increases both, because you get practice in both playing.

[jedipotter]

Well.....no. Tactical Sense has nothing to do with Role-Playing.

Though first we must clarify that ''role-playing'' is not just ''playing a role-playing game''. You can roll up a character, name them Bob and go raid a dungeon and do nothing but pure combat......but that is not role-playing. Too often, people toss around ''role-playing'' to equal ''it's whatever I do that is fun'' or even ''anything''. And that is not the definition of role playing.

Role-Playing is where a person assumes a role to play. And you don't need Tactical Sense to Role-Play.

The vast majority of role play is very detached. A DM will tell the players the crypt is scary and the players will, sort of, role play being, sort of, scared...or not. The players themselves are not scared, so they act exactly like a person who is sitting at a table all safe and sound. They don't act like a halfling deep in the Crypt of Doom would act like.

And a lot of role play is cinematic. The player knows their character won't die or become lost or be effected by any horrible fate as it would not make a good story. And it would not be fun. So again, they are more role playing as a player safe at a table that knows the game flow won't allow anything bad to happen to their character.

And then when we finally come down to tactics, they don't matter too much. The simple thing is that tactics just take up too much time. And they are not heroic. And they are not fun. Take For Real: You enter a dungeon and find a trap. You stop and call the trap finding and removing expert. And you wait. Not heroic or fun. In the Game: You try to disarm or bypass the trap yourself. Very tactically unwise.

Tactically a ''group of random adventures'' makes no sense. You'd want more of a highly trained SEAL team. But again that would be boring, non-fictionally heroic and no fun.

Olympus is Fallen/White House Down are two great examples. The movies make it look like some ''rag tag'' bunch of thugs could take out the White House. So, for example, when they try and shoot the bad guy plane down with a missile....the missile is fooled by the 1960's flares. We can only hope the real White House has fifth generation super genius smart missiles that will never, ever be fooled by a flare. But that does not work for the plot of the movie, so 1960's dumb missile it is. Kinda the same way it takes the military forever to get the the White House as they ''run and drive through the streets of D.C.''. As the movie generals forgot they had planes and helicopters.

So you need to dumb down things to make a typical Hollywood action movie. A role playing game is the same. You can't really use ''tactics'' too much.....they spoil the game.

[avr]

If you're playing in 3.x past first level your character is in more fights than Bilbo was in his entire career. This makes potentially fatal mistakes less understandable.

Smaller peculiarities though should be fine, though it depends who you're gaming with. There isn't a Tark in my usual group; if there is maybe you need to be part of a well oiled machine.

[Chronos]

Having good tactical sense probably makes you better at playing a character who has good tactical sense. Likewise, having bad tactical sense probably makes you better at playing a character who has bad tactical sense. It's always easier to play someone similar to yourself.

[Earthwalker]

To answer the OPs question No, having good tactical sense has no influence on the ability to role play.
I can play a character that has the flaw, poor tactical sense and if I played that out I would be role playing well. Equally I could say he has good tactical sense and use sound tactics and be equally playing well.

[Feint's End]

To answer the OPs question No, having good tactical sense has no influence on the ability to role play.
I can play a character that has the flaw, poor tactical sense and if I played that out I would be role playing well. Equally I could say he has good tactical sense and use sound tactics and be equally playing well.

But this requires you to actually have good tactical sense otherwise you wouldn't be able roleplay the smart character properly. So in a way you said no but you actually agreed with what he said.

As for the OP. I generally agree. Having good tactical sense makes you a better roleplayer in a lot of cases but not all of them. If you really have no idea of tactics and you play your character exactly this way (lets say an int 7 Barbarian) then this is absolutely legit. I'd still rather be a tactically sound player who decides to play the character stupid for the roleplaying though.

I think the main arguement ist that a tactically better versed player is better able to play a wide array of characters due to him being able to see more options and use the appropriate one for the character they are currently playing. So yes to your question (with some limitations).

[Earthwalker]

But this requires you to actually have good tactical sense otherwise you wouldn't be able roleplay the smart character properly. So in a way you said no but you actually agreed with what he said.


Your right I did that but I still say that tactical sense and role playing are different factors that don't have to be linked.

How well you play your role is only linked to tactics if you want to play someone that has a sound tactical mind.

The same as knowing about cooking in real life will make it easier to play someone that wants to play a cook. It helps but I arent going to say that a course in cooking makes you a better role player.

Different games have different approaches to role playing. This is in the 3.P ish forums and I would say in that system being good at the combat mini game is helpful when playing 3.P. The combat mini game seems to take up alot of the time in games I have played in, how much being good at the combat mini game links to being a good tactician is debatable I think its quiet low.

I still think I can have 0 tactical ability and role play as well as anyone else at the table tho. (As long as I am not role playing a tactical genius general)

[Psyren]

Let me start by saying I agree with your conclusion. Good tactics means more options, and more options means you have better ability to choose one that both fits "what my character would do" and "what will allow the group and myself to best accomplish our objectives, even in cases where those objectives are not identical."

So yeah, totally on board with that bit. But you seem to be implying that the reverse is true as well - that a character in a bad situation got there either due to incompetence (his own, or that of his party), or bad luck (his own, or that of his party.) The former implies he would not make it long as an adventurer (because incompetent people in life-threatening situations tend to get killed), and the latter tends to be rare - unless, again, he is incompetent, this time in his build as well as his tactics, since the point of optimization is to minimize the vagaries of random chance.

Highlighting a quote from your blog post that I wanted to focus on:


The sensible answer is to never get in that situation. Proper tactics can help this. So, while a complete dumb character can be roleplayed not to care about tactics it’s very hard to make a playable character that would endanger there comrades to satisfy their thoughtlessness.

But, bad things happen. [U]Bad dice rolls, bad luck, or simply poor choices can lead to a similar scenario.[/B] Some would argue that the in-character thing to do woud be to help. But, that fails to account for the dissenting voices, the other side of the screaming guy trying to keep the rest of their comrades safe as they determine the way out of this without getting the rest of the platoon killed.
...
What does this scenario teaches us? Well it teaches that in this scenario people in a life or death situation people too emotional to understand the situation tend not to last long at all. It teaches that the thoughtful logical approach works.

To this I say you're overlooking the obvious. Remember that logic and even tactics only get you to the right answer if your premises and assumptions are correct. It is very possible to be very thoughtful, very logical/rational, even very tactical - and still, very much wrong, because you do not know all the variables.

The reality is that you can have a great grasp of tactics but still fail because the opponent - in this case the DM - knows something you don't. Perhaps there are enemy reinforcements waiting to teleport in two rounds after the group has made their various perception checks and declared the coast to be clear. Perhaps one of the party members you're depending on as a linchpin in your cunning plan is actually an NPC, and the real party member was kidnapped and replaced two sessions ago. Perhaps there are traps in that corridor, but they have a manual remote trigger, and that's why the summoned monster you sent down the hallway ahead of the group didn't set any off. I wouldn't call any of those bad luck - they're just variables the PC couldn't possibly have anticipated. There are dozens of ways to do this. It can even be in your favor and cause you to make the wrong choice - perhaps in your sniper scenario, the sniper took down your friend with his last shot, and so running out to save him would have actually carried no risk at all, yet you stay in cover analyzing the situation until the sniper's friends arrive in a tank and take the choice away from you.

My conclusion is simply this: the players/PCs don't know everything and neither the game nor real life expects them to. It is possible to roleplay well and still make the wrong choices without being incompetent or even rolling badly.

[TarkXT]

The reality is that you can have a great grasp of tactics but still fail because the opponent - in this case the DM - knows something you don't. Perhaps there are enemy reinforcements waiting to teleport in two rounds after the group has made their various perception checks and declared the coast to be clear. Perhaps one of the party members you're depending on as a linchpin in your cunning plan is actually an NPC, and the real party member was kidnapped and replaced two sessions ago. Perhaps there are traps in that corridor, but they have a manual remote trigger, and that's why the summoned monster you sent down the hallway ahead of the group didn't set any off. I wouldn't call any of those bad luck - they're just variables the PC couldn't possibly have anticipated. There are dozens of ways to do this. It can even be in your favor and cause you to make the wrong choice - perhaps in your sniper scenario, the sniper took down your friend with his last shot, and so running out to save him would have actually carried no risk at all, yet you stay in cover analyzing the situation until the sniper's friends arrive in a tank and take the choice away from you.

My conclusion is simply this: the players/PCs don't know everything and neither the game nor real life expects them to. It is possible to roleplay well and still make the wrong choices without being incompetent or even rolling badly.

It was never my intention to imply that being tactically inept made you a worse roleplayer.

The question really only addressed whether or not having a good grasp of tactics lent itself to good roleplaying.

As far as making bad decisions based purely because of information you don't know that for me is a completely different animal. Hiding information from your opponent is afterall another aspect of tactics though one much harder to pull off on the player end due to the GM basically being omniscient when it comes to player and npc actions.

To the original topic:

I posted this in the paizo boards naturally and something that I considered over there is the question of balancing deliberate combat limitations.

That is, I think making a successful character that only fights "honorably" means adjusting ones tactics to account for this limitation.

Just to look at Keldrath's example above where they played a character where the usually advantageous flanking bonus actually turns into a disadvantage.

While they played the character fine their seemed to be a failure in balancing it with an adjustment in some other form, or at the very least a failure in communication with the group about it.

As far as tactics and rolepleying having nothing to do with each other?

I don't think so. As I discussed early in the blog post tactics and the actions you take because of them are actions your character takes. Those actions and the thought behind them is every bit as much roleplaying as how your character eats his breakfast, talks to the king, and woos the tavern wenches. It's part and parcel with the whole "playing a role" shebang and works towards building the greater narrative.

[Flickerdart]

Tactics and roleplaying are distinct, but related in that bad roleplayers who think they are good roleplayers like to conflate them.

It's the same sort of thing as the "my character wouldn't do X" thing - it's easy to announce "my honourable paladin pulls out his sword and charges at the bad guys across 300 feet of open terrain" and think wow, look at my guy being all knightly and stuff, that's A+ roleplaying right there. Then he gets killed, and gets his party killed, and nobody has a good time.

A good roleplayer would think "what would my character do that leads to success?" A paladin would know that charging across flat terrain is a great way to get pincushioned with arrows, even if it's very heroic. Instead, a smart and brave thing to do would be to call out to the enemy and lure them to him while his party circles around and takes the enemy in the rear.

Relying on the DM or your allies to coddle you from the consequences of your actions, though? That's the worst kind of "roleplaying".

[jedipotter]

As far as tactics and rolepleying having nothing to do with each other?

I don't think so. As I discussed early in the blog post tactics and the actions you take because of them are actions your character takes. Those actions and the thought behind them is every bit as much roleplaying as how your character eats his breakfast, talks to the king, and woos the tavern wenches. It's part and parcel with the whole "playing a role" shebang and works towards building the greater narrative.

Saying ''my character takes a five foot step to flank the troll and swings my sword using power attack'' is not role-playing. Your playing D&D sure, but saying game rules is not role playing.

Even doing the tiny tactics ''my character attacks the Far Guards first '' is not really role playing. Even the complex battle plans to attack the Lich Fort are not role playing.

But in any case, D&D has almost no tactics in any case. The game is little more then ''walk up to a monster and attack''. Sure, you can attack a couple different ways, but they are not all that different.

Sure, you could use ''good tactics'' and in like every single combat[/I make an [I]overly big and showy deal about how your character ''using good tactics'' flanks a foe. But does that make your role play better?

[Barstro]

Tactics and roleplaying are distinct, but related in that bad roleplayers who think they are good roleplayers like to conflate them.

It's the same sort of thing as the "my character wouldn't do X" thing - it's easy to announce "my honourable paladin pulls out his sword and charges at the bad guys across 300 feet of open terrain" and think wow, look at my guy being all knightly and stuff, that's A+ roleplaying right there. Then he gets killed, and gets his party killed, and nobody has a good time.

A good roleplayer would think "what would my character do that leads to success?" A paladin would know that charging across flat terrain is a great way to get pincushioned with arrows, even if it's very heroic. Instead, a smart and brave thing to do would be to call out to the enemy and lure them to him while his party circles around and takes the enemy in the rear.

Relying on the DM or your allies to coddle you from the consequences of your actions, though? That's the worst kind of "roleplaying".

I think this scenario is interesting and correct in the final outcome, but I disagree with the specifics and the premise.
From a "playing a roleplaying game" stance, the Paladin would not make such a charge and would help his teammates. As stated many times, that part of roleplaying requires tactical knowledge.

From a "roleplaying" stance, I think the original Leroy Jenkins approach is a correct way to play the character. HOWEVER, that character would never have wanted to join this group in the first place and the group never would have accepted him even if he did want to join. That's even assuming that such a character would still be alive. The TPK scenario never would have happened. If good roleplaying happened that actually resulted in the Paladin joining the rest of the people, they would have had some reason to anticipate such a reaction and another player would have a standby action to trip the Paladin before he made it five feet.

Personally, I would love to play with a character that refuses (in character) to flank. I would (in character) spend a lot of time trying to work with that player to the benefit of the team. I expect that to take several levels.

To the OP's question; because player advancement is mostly dependent on fighting, then having tactical knowledge is perhaps the most important thing to play this game (again, that is separate from roleplaying). The roleplaying part comes from the player making sure that he does not impart his tactical knowledge to a character that wouldn't know it.

There are three scenarios;
1) Player has no tactical knowledge, but the PC is supposed to.
2) Player and PC have and are supposed to have the same knowledge
3) Player has all sorts of knowledge and the PC is not supposed to

1) Creates a character who does not live up to his potential and is a detriment to the party
2) Provided the player uses his knowledge correctly, this is how a PC should be played. Much rejoicing.
3) If the player restrains himself, it will be same as #2. If the PC constantly uses knowledge that the PC would not have, then you have metagaming. I dislike that.

[Deophaun]

But in any case, D&D has almost no tactics in any case. The game is little more then ''walk up to a monster and attack''. Sure, you can attack a couple different ways, but they are not all that different.
This is simply not true. If it were, you could give any character to any player and expect similar outcomes in any conflict.

[dascarletm]

I disagree with the premise that being tactical makes you a better role-player. Allow me to break this down.

Being tactical means you are better equipped to determine which options you see are superior to other options that you see. Being tactical doesn't give you more or less options.

Obtaining these options is done multiple ways such as: being creative, being perceptive, having pre-gained working knowledge about the situation, etc.

Then you decide which option to take. You weigh the characters psyche vs the options and go with what you think the character would do. If tactical thinking is part of the character's MO, then you put that into play. This is where being tactical could help, but even now it isn't necessary.

If someone wants to play a charismatic character, but isn't charismatic they can. You get help. Sure it is easier when you don't need to rely on people but it isn't necessary.


In fact, in my working experience as a player I've only ever seen it work the opposite. The "tactical" guys often shun the options that are less tactically sound for the most efficient option every time. I'm sure there can be a character that does this, but every character? please. These people in my experience tend to try and enforce this play-style to others.

Conclusion: It doesn't make a bit of difference guys. The tactics are inert.

OH! as a side note,

Being intelligent doesn't mean you are more or less tactical. Being tactical means you are tactical. I'd rather have General Patton leading my troops than Neil deGrasse Tyson (even though Tyson is probably smarter than Patton was.)

[Flickerdart]

Being tactical means you are better equipped to determine which options you see are superior to other options that you see. Being tactical doesn't give you more or less options.
Wrong. The greatest tacticians were great precisely because they could think of moves nobody else could envision, counters to those moves, counter-counters, etc. Simply being able to pick the best move from a list doesn't take much skill.




If someone wants to play a charismatic character, but isn't charismatic they can. You get help. Sure it is easier when you don't need to rely on people but it isn't necessary.

If someone wants to play a charismatic character, they put ranks in Bluff and Diplomacy. No such support exists for combat tactics, unless your DM gives you hints when you make Knowledge (History) or Profession (Soldier) checks.

[dascarletm]

Wrong. The greatest tacticians were great precisely because they could think of moves nobody else could envision, counters to those moves, counter-counters, etc. Simply being able to pick the best move from a list doesn't take much skill.
They were very creative, which helped them in that regard. Being tactical is defined as "adroit in planning or maneuvering to accomplish a purpose" The ability to plan/maneuver. Creative insight helps, but are not one in the same.

clever and creative are not the same. (they have overlap yes)



If someone wants to play a charismatic character, they put ranks in Bluff and Diplomacy. No such support exists for combat tactics, unless your DM gives you hints when you make Knowledge (History) or Profession (Soldier) checks.
I was mostly referring to the other players. This is how my young nephew played a "tactical warrior" type while not having a strong grasp of tactics himself. He'd often ask the other players for help. Similarly I am talking about when someone who can't write poetry himself and plays a character with such a skill said player can use pre-existing poetry or have another player help write some poetry for the character to say.

[Flickerdart]

Being tactical is defined as "adroit in planning or maneuvering to accomplish a purpose" The ability to plan/maneuver. Creative insight helps, but are not one in the same.
Oh, we're doing the dictionary semantics thing now? Lovely.

[dascarletm]

Oh, we're doing the dictionary semantics thing now? Lovely.

No, I'm pointing out that being a tactical genius takes traits in addition to being "tactical." These traits are distinct. This is in response to your issue with my definition of tactical. Thus a definition is supplied to bolster my point.

You on the other hand are being hostile and condescending and I'd appreciate it if you would cease.

[Deophaun]

Thus a definition is supplied to bolster my point.
Your point relies on a short definition regarding a topic whose nature has filled libraries of discussion. Do you really think dictionary.com finally nailed it down once and for all?

[dascarletm]

Your point relies on a short definition regarding a topic whose nature has filled libraries of discussion. Do you really think dictionary.com finally nailed it down once and for all?

Yes, since I'm merely divorcing creativeness from it. I am only saying that being tactical does not imply being creative.

To be specific I'm saying a character can be tactical and uncreative or any combination in-between. I was commenting on the premise that being tactical gives more options, and saying it isn't necessarily the case. That is all.

[Deophaun]

Yes, since I'm merely divorcing creativeness from it.
So you define tactics as not requiring creativity, and therefore that proves that tactics do not require creativity.

[dascarletm]

And you define being tactical as requiring creativity, and thus proves that being tactical means being creative.
It seems as though we differ in our definition of this word/concept. Is this not why we have a standard definition provided by Mirriam-Webster and other such institutions?

To my actual point:
I'm saying specifically someone can be tactical. They can know when to take 5ft steps, etc, and not be creative. They might not be innovative but otherwise be described as tactical.

[Deophaun]

And you define tactics as needing creativity and thus proves that tactics requires creativity.
It seems as though we differ in our definition of this word/concept. Is this not why we have a standard definition provided by Mirriam-Webster and other such institutions?
No, actually, it isn't. Webster does not define words. English speakers define words. Webster just does its best to encapsulate the meaning within a brief description, and sometimes fails spectacularly. Well, frequently, actually, if the words in question are technical terms in your field of study.

So to your preferred definition, show me a single field officer that holds creativity to be something entirely separate from tactics.

[dascarletm]

No, actually, it isn't. Webster does not define words. English speakers define words. Webster just does its best to encapsulate the meaning within a brief description, and sometimes fails spectacularly. Well, frequently, actually, if the words in question are technical terms in your field of study.

So to your preferred definition, show me a single field officer that holds creativity to be something entirely separate from tactics.

This is utterly ludicrous.

1. I too am an English speaker and as such can define this word.

2. You require that I show you something to when you yourself have done no such thing.


Set 1:Tactical sense(X), Tactics(Y), Tactician(Z).

Set 2:Writing skill(X), Writing(Y), Writer(Z).

Insert set 1 then set 2 into this sentence.


Being good at Y, requires good X. It also helps to be Creative, especially when one wants to be a skilled Z.


I'm not required to sway your position, provide proof of mine, or any other such thing. Disagree or agree as you wish.

[Deophaun]

1. I too am an English speaker and as such can define this word.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

[dascarletm]

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

Interesting.

What excludes you from this?

What intrinsically makes your definition correct?

What backing do you have, Sir Dumpty?

[Brookshw]

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

I don't see the positions you or Flickerdart have espoused to be entirely fair to Dascarletm. He doesn't seem to treat these two elements, creativity and tactics, as wholly divorced as he seems to be painted but rather acknowledges they are distinct yet symbiotic elements which play upon one another. Using Flickerdarts earlier presentation, it's not, as I understand Descarletm to be saying, that tactics is picking things from a list and that's final. It's that creativity contributes to the formulation of that list and then the tactics plays into forming and selecting of the creative and understood options.

Back on topic, I don't see an understanding of good tactical sense necessarily having much to do with roleplaying, but it could at times contribute. By way of example we know that certain cultures have had effective blind spots to tactics that simply were anathema to them, they were simply outside of their consideration. I could see on an individual level this translating to players making tactically "lesser" decisions in their actions if they support or align with how the player envisions the character responding, some things simply wouldn't be considered. Meanwhile the player's knowledge of tactics contributes to the thought process in allowing them to identify what options the character might support, discard, or simply be unaware of.

[jedipotter]

This is simply not true. If it were, you could give any character to any player and expect similar outcomes in any conflict.

Well, that is what D&D strives to do, so say some: make every character no matter race or class all equal.

But D&D has very few ''tactics'' you can use. your limited by the rules. So, sure, you can do five or six things, but that is it.

You could ''hide and surprise'' a foe....ok, that is one. You can ''fight defensively'' ok, two. And run through the combat actions.

But you can't really do much else.....unless your talking about some other definition of ''tactics''.

[TarkXT]

Saying ''my character takes a five foot step to flank the troll and swings my sword using power attack'' is not role-playing. Your playing D&D sure, but saying game rules is not role playing.

Even doing the tiny tactics ''my character attacks the Far Guards first '' is not really role playing. Even the complex battle plans to attack the Lich Fort are not role playing.

But in any case, D&D has almost no tactics in any case. The game is little more then ''walk up to a monster and attack''. Sure, you can attack a couple different ways, but they are not all that different.

Sure, you could use ''good tactics'' and in like every single combat make an overly big and showy deal about how your character ''using good tactics'' flanks a foe. But does that make your role play better?


And here's the trick. Saying that you walk up and hit the monster is still roleplaying. Why?

It's describing what you're character is doing.

That's it. That's all. Nothing else to it. Is it good roleplaying? That's debateable but I think "no" is a safe bet. But it's still roleplaying. Describing actions in-game is the substitute we have for actually walking and driving through the streets of D.C. Vocally expressing what our character does. This very thing you seem to disdain is actually the driving mechanic for some games to produce that cinematic experience offering reward and incentive to describe things in more interesting or meaningful ways.

As far as "no tactics in D&D" I think that shows a greater ignorance on your part than how anyone defines roleplaying.

For one walking up and hitting the monster isn't a tactic. Really, it's more of the end goal to a tactic. After all the monsters goal is "not to let that guy hit me but ima eat him". Tactics is the mental and physical struggle to ensure
you actually hit the monster or, the real end goal of every encounter, survive it as successfully and as intact as possible. Because it's really hard to roleplay as a dead guy.

And it requires quite a bit of complexity largely ignored due in part to it's intuitiveness. Afterall why do groups seem to gravitate towards the whole thief/fighter/mage/priest schtick? Is it out of a sense of fantasy tradition? Is it because that's just how we've always done it? Or is it because we intuitively know a balanced group should be open to all the options available to us as players? We don't think of things like flanking with a rogue because that doesn't sound liek tactics in our mind. But it is. Tactics is not just high ordered Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan thinking. It's also the little things like taking cover under fire,

And what does that have to do with roleplay? Just look at paladin code of conduct. It explicitly calls out certain tactics (i.e. acting dishonorably) as things you should not do. And thus they shape the way we describe our actions lest we have real in-game consequences. That's an actual mechanical example.

Another example may be the barbarian who disdains ranged weapons purely because they believe worthy opponents can only be met blade on blade. That too requires some thoughts on tactics since even a stupid barbarian has to acknowledge that not every opponent thinks the same way.

And if they require help in-character to figure that out? That's great! That's interaction, that's in-character discussion, that's roleplay. It's a little character arc where the barbarian finally has to either discard his notions in order to survive or adapt his code to accomodate a world that is quite happy to pump arrows into him from a hundred yards off.

@descarletm:

You disagree with the idea that tactics can make roleplaying stronger under two premises that 1. unless the character has tactics as an m.o. it's unnecessary. and 2. even in the case that it is and you're deficient you can get help out of character.

Let's start with number one.

The trouble with number one is that you need a character where tactics isn't part of their m.o.

To explain. If I'm playing a shifty character who fights dirty he's going to use dirty tactics. If I'm playing a character who is suicidal I will embrace suicidal tactics. Tactics is a method, not a goal even under the definition you give.

Therefore I need to know, "What is a suicidal tactic? What is a dirty tactic?"

And I agree you can be an uncreative tactician. But, I disagree that you can be creative and not be a tactician. You end up one incidentally because tactics is afterall "adroit planning and maneuvering" you can do that on the fly which coincides with cleverness. Being uncreative just means using what you know works without spending effort to come up with something new or on the fly to match the situation. It's not devoid of tactics it's just two ways to approach tactics.

As for the second point. Not everyone can get help. Help with tactics assumes that someoen else at the table knows what they're doing. More over it makes the assumption that other people want to listen. Too often, since I started the whole writing about strategy/tactics thing I hear people lament and ask advice about groups that refuse to listen and sometimes even despise tactics for one reason or another.


To expand a bit.

Along a similar vein would having a fair bit of knowledge in a profession like blacksmithing help you roleplay a blacksmith better?

[dascarletm]

@descarletm:

You disagree with the idea that tactics can make roleplaying stronger under two premises that 1. unless the character has tactics as an m.o. it's unnecessary. and 2. even in the case that it is and you're deficient you can get help out of character.


Really this is in regards to being "tactical" or being tactically minded or just being good at tactics. I'd phrase it: 1. If the character is defined as lacking in tactical ability it is not necessary for the player to have a high proficiency in said ability.



Let's start with number one.

The trouble with number one is that you need a character where tactics isn't part of their m.o.

To explain. If I'm playing a shifty character who fights dirty he's going to use dirty tactics. If I'm playing a character who is suicidal I will embrace suicidal tactics. Tactics is a method, not a goal even under the definition you give.

Therefore I need to know, "What is a suicidal tactic? What is a dirty tactic?"

And I agree you can be an uncreative tactician. But, I disagree that you can be creative and not be a tactician. You end up one incidentally because tactics is afterall "adroit planning and maneuvering" you can do that on the fly which coincides with cleverness. Being uncreative just means using what you know works without spending effort to come up with something new or on the fly to match the situation. It's not devoid of tactics it's just two ways to approach tactics.


I think we have moved from "being good at tactics" to "using tactics." I'm not making that point. I've excluded people who cannot distinguish between broad tactic types (suicidal/dirty). We are taking average joe vs. GI joe, or someone who is average in the ability and someone skilled in it. I'm saying Joe average will not have his role-play hindered. I think we are on different points in this one. There is a very wide range between 0 tactical ability and master tactician. While someone extremely deficient would have trouble, I don't think high skill vs average skill will increase role-play ability.

I'm glad you agree in part. If anyone wants an example look at Ultramarines from WH40k.:smallbiggrin:

For the second part, I'd say I agree with you for the most part, and concede to your argument.



As for the second point. Not everyone can get help. Help with tactics assumes that someoen else at the table knows what they're doing. More over it makes the assumption that other people want to listen. Too often, since I started the whole writing about strategy/tactics thing I hear people lament and ask advice about groups that refuse to listen and sometimes even despise tactics for one reason or another.


I suppose that just isn't my experience playing. Anything would be hard to roleplay having a high proficiency in that you yourself lack. Not having support would hurt all of these aspects.



Along a similar vein would having a fair bit of knowledge in a profession like blacksmithing help you roleplay a blacksmith better?

Maybe, maybe not.

First, I am talking average knowledge vs. in depth knowledge.

Second, here are my three scenarios.

1 (0 knowledge on blacksmithing): It's neigh impossible to roleplay something you know nothing about.
2 (casual knowledge on blacksmithing): I can roleplay this just fine. I don't give details on anything blacksmithing related, just generalities. If I want to say something specific I make something up that is vaguely correct. Everything is great.
3 (high knowledge in blacksmithing): I can roleplay this just fine. I can speak about blacksmith related things, usually keeping the details out due to pedantry. If I want to say something specific I talk about something specific. Everything is great.

[mvpmack]

I think part of the problem is that we aren't defining "good roleplaying."

Is refusing to work with your team good roleplaying, even if such refusal is in character? I'd incline to say that it is rather situational as to whether that is true. Some people seem to accept that it is universally true, but I strongly disagree with that.

Being in character =/= good roleplaying. Being grossly out of character == bad roleplaying; there's a significant difference.

Let's have a thought experiment.

1: Your party is hunting for a group of bad guys. You work out a strategy for when your team encounters the bad guys. In the first instance of contact, where people are getting into position before attacking, the team's wizard charges into the enemy because, and I quote, "I'm a wild mage!!!1!" Your party is not yet in position, and this throws the entire plan into disarray.

2: Your party must obtain a magic item, as the magic item is very important to the plot. It is currently a museum piece, and the organization who owns the museum is not evil. The item is not for sale, but its value is within the party's purchasing power (though very expensive). The good members of the party insist that at the very least, if the item is stolen then the museum must be compensated (anonymously). The party agrees and a plot is hatched to steal the item.

Situation 1 is bad roleplaying. Situation 2 is good roleplaying. I will even make a claim: buddy****ing is bad roleplaying, regardless of whether it is in character. Cooperating with the party despite differences is good roleplaying.

This is within the confines of roleplaying games, where the operative word is game and the players are a group of individuals working together to achieve goals. Does using bad tactics make you a bad or good roleplayer? No, but screwing your team because "my guy" is. You are always responsible for the actions of your character.

Consider the flanking story. Rather than work against the party, why not work to help, and roleplay it as character development? Why not have a bit of angsty roleplaying afterwards with cheesy dialogues like "I didn't think I could ever trust people on the battlefield" or something?

Within the context of roleplaying games, good roleplaying is all about overcoming adversity. That adverse situation where your character triumphs over his previously-held prejudices? That's good roleplaying. This bad tactics buddy****ing stuff is not good roleplaying.

[holywhippet]

I recall one session playing Warhammer 40K: Dark Heresy. We were investigating a mine and found two doors in a corridor. We opened the door and saw a demon inside. The tech priest, who got to act first, noticed the smell of promethium (in 40K terms, think something akin to napalm although it is a general use fuel) and realized there were barrels of the stuff stored in the room. He warned the rest of use and ducked back into the corridor to avoid hitting them with a stray shot. The next player was running a scum gunslinger and he pondered the matter for a short time and concluded that his character wouldn't be savvy enough about things like promethium and wouldn't pay attention to the warning from the tech priest. So he fired both of his automatic pistols at the demon and missed most of his shots. We had to burn off fate points to avoid dying in the ensuing conflagration.

How exactly do you regard a player who attempts a TPK via applied ignorance? To be honest this player was a bit weird with some of his decisions in certain games anyway. In one Cthulhu game he declared his intention to board a plane for Mexico to avoid any upcoming trouble.

[mvpmack]

How exactly do you regard a player who attempts a TPK via applied ignorance? To be honest this player was a bit weird with some of his decisions in certain games anyway. In one Cthulhu game he declared his intention to board a plane for Mexico to avoid any upcoming trouble.

Buddy****ing is not good roleplaying, ever.

[Vhaidara]

Consider the flanking story. Rather than work against the party, why not work to help, and roleplay it as character development? Why not have a bit of angsty roleplaying afterwards with cheesy dialogues like "I didn't think I could ever trust people on the battlefield" or something?

You see, I might have gone with that, but the flank wouldn't even be part of the character's thought process. It isn't a matter of not trusting other people on the battlefield, it's a matter of not acknowledging the presence of allies on the battlefield. There was no IC request for a flank.

Also, exception to the buddy****ing rule: if it is discussed in advance, it can be completely okay.

However, one of the best roleplaying stories I've heard was from one of my dad's campaigns.

The party is in a town that has been taken over by a necromancer, and the villagers have all been taken captive and are about to be sacrificed. They've fought their way through to the sacrifice room (distinguished by the chanting coming from inside). The party is standing outside the door discussing strategy, and one of the fighters (a LG individual) sends the GM a message
"Once you determine they have spent more than a minute discussing the plan, Randal says "We need to save those people. NOW." and charges into the room."
Guess what happened? They kept discussing the plan. So he charged in to save the innocent villagers who were going to be sacrificed any moment. And the rest of the party went "Oh ****, right, this is kind of time sensitive" and piled in after him.

In a slightly related note: This is when I first heard of Leeroy Jenkins (my dad made the comparison)

[jedipotter]

Along a similar vein would having a fair bit of knowledge in a profession like blacksmithing help you roleplay a blacksmith better?

The thing is your kinda saying ''anything you do in a game is role-playing''. It's way too vague. To say ''my character attacks!'' is not exactly the same as speaking a whole paragraph about your character. It's like saying ''an apple'' could be a ''meal''.

Yes, real world knowledge of blacksmithing can greatly enhance the role play of a blacksmith character. That is all the talking and actions of the character. Blacksmithing in the game is still just a roll of the dice. And all the real world knowledge does not effect the skill check at all. Your still just rolling a d20.

It might be a bit better to say ''good tactical sense can make you better at combat'' or maybe even ''adventure''.

I can say the vast majority of players have no tactical sense, even really basic things. But then that is true of most people too. Some people know a bit of Hollywood Tactics, but that is about as far as it goes. Though, of course, most people have no real reason to know anything about tactics and combat.

And even people that know a bit, often don't use it, as ''D&D is just a game''. For example, few players ever bother with cover. And ''common sense'' tactics like ''lets not go into the dark cave'' are not used either.

[goto124]

They kept discussing the plan. So he charged in to save the innocent villagers who were going to be sacrificed any moment. And the rest of the party went "Oh ****, right, this is kind of time sensitive" and piled in after him.

If the players are eating up too much RL time, you should tell them OOCly, instead of forcing them like that. At least, not at first- it's more understandable if they have a history of taking too long.

[Vhaidara]

If the players are eating up too much RL time, you should tell them OOCly, instead of forcing them like that. At least, not at first- it's more understandable if they have a history of taking too long.

This was a play-by-e-mail game. And it was a matter of the player realizing that they would only have a limited amount of time IC to plan. a LG character isn't going to stand around for 5 minutes discussing the tactics of saving the villagers while the villagers in question are being sacrificed.

[mvpmack]

You see, I might have gone with that, but the flank wouldn't even be part of the character's thought process. It isn't a matter of not trusting other people on the battlefield, it's a matter of not acknowledging the presence of allies on the battlefield. There was no IC request for a flank.

In firm adherence of the core rule of don't screw with your party, why not tell them to ask IC? Talking is a free action.

re: Dad's story -- That player was kind of a jerk. No other way to say it. If my team is OOC planning and the player just says "yeah I'm gonna Leeroy" that's really not OK. If he did that in my party, I'd just do all the planning with the rest of the team once my initiative came up. If he was really nice I might even include him.

No screwing the team. Ever. Also, "x is just a game" is bad roleplaying too, because that is almost always precluded by "my character does something stupid that no sane human in the same situation would do"

[holywhippet]

I don't think the Leeroy moment was entirely bad. I have had DMs who keep track of what people are saying and how long it is taking which is fair enough. Even the rules say that extended discussions aren't a free action. If the BBEG is busy knifing innocent villagers the players shouldn't be standing around gabbing.

[georgie_leech]

In firm adherence of the core rule of don't screw with your party, why not tell them to ask IC? Talking is a free action.

re: Dad's story -- That player was kind of a jerk. No other way to say it. If my team is OOC planning and the player just says "yeah I'm gonna Leeroy" that's really not OK. If he did that in my party, I'd just do all the planning with the rest of the team once my initiative came up. If he was really nice I might even include him.

No screwing the team. Ever. Also, "x is just a game" is bad roleplaying too, because that is almost always precluded by "my character does something stupid that no sane human in the same situation would do"

If the team's goal was to save the villagers, is acting quickly to save them screwing the team over? Not acting in concert with the party is not the same as screwing everyone over.

[Barstro]

You see, I might have gone with that, but the flank wouldn't even be part of the character's thought process. It isn't a matter of not trusting other people on the battlefield, it's a matter of not acknowledging the presence of allies on the battlefield. There was no IC request for a flank.

How one responds to the above question gives a good look at what sort of roleplayer (by either definition) the player is. It isn't a good vs. bad thing, it's a Type-A, Type-B, Type-C thing.

Many players will correctly say that it is a team game and the PC (through the player) is hurting the team. My view is that the PC is being roleplayed correctly and its up to the other PCs (not players) to change how he behaves in combat. Many others will say that the player should never have been made to begin with because he isn't min-maxed enough. Another faction will say that the PC should make a custom magic item that causes him to ignore the penalty for flanking and that the magic item should cost only 1000gp and also provide +6 STR.

As to the wonderful tangent of defining words; only the OP can state what he actually means by "tactical sense". Don't reword or reinterpret a question to support your answer. We get enough of that crap from Washington DC.

"If I am correct in understanding your question to be 'X', then the answer is 'Y'" is a response.
"The answer is 'Z' because I decided that's what you are really asking" isn't quite as relevant a response. But to each his own.

[Flickerdart]

My view is that the PC is being roleplayed correctly and its up to the other PCs (not players) to change how he behaves in combat.
Or it's up to the other PCs to say "hey buddy, if you're gonna sabotage us in combat then we'll find someone else for the party." Justifying anti-team things with "my character would do it" is flimsy and counter-productive.


Another faction will say that the PC should make a custom magic item that causes him to ignore the penalty for flanking and that the magic item should cost only 1000gp and also provide +6 STR.
{scrubbed}

[Barstro]

Or it's up to the other PCs to say "hey buddy, if you're gonna sabotage us in combat then we'll find someone else for the party." Justifying anti-team things with "my character would do it" is flimsy and counter-productive..

Quite true. And then those PCs can have a talk to the other one about the benefits of flanking. As was stated in the instance scenario, the PC wasn't trying to be harmful; there was a story reason for why he never even considered working with a team. Those other PCs can provide that reason. Since I assume the large negative to flanking that the PC had was a custom trait, it should have been expected by the DM, if not the other players, that such an occurrence and the resulting (in character) conversation would happen.

Roleplaying a character (as opposed to just being a dungeon crawl combat guy) involves;
1) A character concept
2) Enough knowledge of the game to impart onto the character the ability to follow the concept (both game knowledge and tactical knowledge) (Note: this is why I do not play Wizards or Clerics, I don't have enough knowledge to play them how I think they should be played)
3) Other players who are willing to interact in the roleplaying way (even if they are not actively roleplaying, they need to be able to go along with the one who is)
4) A DM who also will interact that way.

If there is a breakdown between #2 and #3, then the player cannot roleplay the way she desires. If the breakdown is at #4, then all players probably need to rethink their characters or the game.

Now, you and I probably differ on the theory behind a PC who, for character reasons, will not assist in flanking. I consider it a fine roleplaying trait that I would love to fix in-game. You seem to consider it to be anti-team from the start and should never happen in the first place. In your game; no, the player should not use that concept and should either not play or else retcon the character.

I would take a different view if the PC is actively sabotaging the fights by attacking other players or other nonsense and calling it "in-character". But I'd still deal with that situation with my character. That is why in my last game I had my Witch turn another PC into a newt. But, I still think it was fine roleplaying all around and the other PC finally learned to work as a team member.