A Player who is "too good" at strategy

[Draco_Lord]

So recently a friend of mine started DMing for the first time, about a month or two ago now, and they have run into a bit of an issue with their current group. As another DM they know they spoke to me about it, I am sad to say I couldn't help much, given that the issue isn't one I've faced or heard much about. I will do my best to explain the issue, but given that I am hearing this second hand I can't answer every question, I am just hoping to get some ideas on what to suggest to my friend, and maybe help them out a bit.

So from my understanding the issue that he has is a player of his keeps suggesting the ideal solution to pretty much everything instantly. This is leading to the other players not interacting much, and putting a bit of a hold on group interactions. He says that the other players while not being vocal about it seem a little upset that they don't get to contribute to plans and that it is putting a damper on the game. The player is a Wizard with high mental stats, so being that smart is also in character. What should he do about this issue? Can he do anything about this?

I personally suggested that he just ask the player to hold back a bit before giving a plan, let others talk things out before adding in his 2 cents, given that the problem is a weird one, and asking him to just not contribute seems wrong.

[Merellis]

That's really the only solution as the player is hogging the spotlight a bit. Asking them to hold back a bit so that there can be some exchange of ideas and some interaction is a perfectly sensible request.

[Arc_knight25]

I've been in this situation. And currently sort of still. It was a Shadowrun game. Guy just kind of took over at the table, strong personality and always had an answer for everything. May it have been a part of planning our mission, or combat tactics or anything really. The GM/Storyteller it seemed used these answers and incorporated them into his session.

So the guy was dictating player tactics, as well as guiding the GM/Storyteller.

It was brought up to the GM, who had a conversation with the player. We have since moved on to playing Aberrant. The player took a more back seat approach to his character building. He still leads, just from the back, I will say it is better this time around. He is dictating a lot less to players as well as the GM/Storyteller.

So after that long winded story, talk with them. Have the GM have an aside with the other players before game and see what they think of the situation, maybe they prefer it? Get there opinions then bring those to the player in question. Don't be aggressive or tell him he's playing wrong, just ask him to tone it back so others can have some fun. If he's understanding he will change his game play. If he's a brat about it, say goodbye to the player telling him he isn't a good fit for the group and you wish him well on his journey to find another gaming group.

[BowStreetRunner]

I played in a game with a player like this and the GM had a really good solution - at least for that player in that game. However, I'm not sure it would work as a fix for a game already in-progress. Anyway, the GM knew beforehand that the player not only really was good at figuring things out, but that player had also played in that specific campaign back in an earlier edition so would likely see through a lot of the cosmetic changes it underwent porting it to 3.5. The DM helped the player build a 'Gandalf'-like character who was responsible not merely for solving everyone's problems, but rather for guiding them to the solutions. He always knew more than they did but tried hard not to let on how much he knew.

My suggestion for a game in progress would be for the DM to make the player understand that this ability is also a bit of a liability, as people are becoming dependent on him to solve things. Give the party a couple of scenarios where people they helped previously now come back to them asking for help for every little thing. Where the town they saved is overrun the moment they leave and they keep having to save it again. Where nothing they accomplish is permanent because only they can accomplish it (kind of like how in Game of Thrones the slaver cities are back in the hands of the master now that Daenerys has moved on to another city. Even put the player in a situation where he must rely on the party to solve a problem to which he knows the answer but can't tell them (like he is trapped and the party is outside trying to free him - they cannot see or hear him and he actually knows what they need to do but can't tell them).

Over time, both in-character and out-of-game, make the player to understand that if he is going to do everything himself then he is going to be expected to be everywhere at once doing everything. He should eventually learn to hold back to let others figure things out and only step forward when no one else is able to solve something and even then only just enough to nudge them in the right direction and only when absolutely necessary. But to get to this it has to cost him when he dives right in and fixes things.

[nedz]

I have a couple of players like this, but I know them really well and can predict - with a reasonably high probability - what their approach will be. So I just lampshade or subvert that outcome. You can even improvise your way around this, but you have to be very good to not get caught out here - so I would avoid doing this in a post facto manner. The DM just has to outplay them at their own game, which it sounds like this DM cannot do.

[Barstro]

I see a couple issues;

1) Other players feel left out
A1) Suck it up and learn to play. (I do not consider that a valid solution to this particular situation)

2) Player is too good at strategy.
A1) Make harder challenges (I do not consider this a solution given the other issues states, and the fact that it would only work if Issue #1 were solved with the provided solution.)
A2) Cripple the player. (Good answer; more on it later)

3) This is the big one; the PLAYER is making all the decisions, but nothing has been said on if the PC actually has the mental fortitude to come up with it INT and WIS to come up with the plans in-game.

As someone who finds great enjoyment the same way this player does, I strongly suggest that you find a way to give him the challenges that he so greatly wants to solve, but hamper him somehow. If he is still like me, he will enjoy the added difficulty. BUT, just saying "don't do that because _____" will only lead to him being extremely dissatisfied with the game.

First, make sure that he is actually playing a character, not just telling everyone what to do. If that involves his character taking the "Gandalf" role that BowStreetRunner suggested. That would be good enough for me.

For an out-of-character solution; allow him to only be able to provide part of a plan, and ONLY after someone else gave an original idea first. And just to clarify what I mean;

Strategist thinks the best way over the chasm is to take the bridge...
DM: You get to a chasm.
S: We should... crap... I sit there silently
PC1: I start to climb down the cliff

At this point, Strategist CANNOT suggest the bridge, since someone else already came up with scaling the chasm. He now must help find a way to make the original plan actually work. Either the other players will learn to appreciate his strategies, or he will exercise his mind more than he thought.

[Tiktakkat]

From the "other" side of the "problem":

What should a player do when he is simply better at tactics and planning than the rest of the players?
What should he do when the group comes up with a brilliant way of achieving a TPK?
What should he do when his insight suggests a completely divergent course of action that nobody else has a clue about?
What should he do when the DM starts to punish him for just plain being good at playing the game?

Been there, done that.
And except in one case found other people to play with.
The only GM who managed to make it enjoyable had to suffer with two people who were THAT good at tactics (me), gaming the system (my friend), and raw plot intuition (what I didn't think of he did). Rather than punish us directly he just rewarded the totally incompetent player outrageously, which left us "fighting" his stupidity as often as we fought the villains, and was generally worth a few good chuckles.

Then there is the "other-other" side:

Being the DM with players who couldn't tactically escape a wet paper bag.
Use standard tactics, its a TPK.
Use marginal tactics, the body count builds.
Use random tactics, PCs still drop.
Play deliberately stupid, and they can usually survive.

Yeah, that's a whole lot of fun too.
Of course when the one player who not only knows tactics but is better than me would play and I could let loose, THAT was entertainment.
Even the few groups that could manage reasonable cooperation would lift the game above the usual irrelevance.

So before convincing the player not to be so good at tactics, consider the possible consequences, particularly whether the group will TPK regularly without the advice.

[Draco_Lord]

Thank you everyone for the advice, I really appreciate the way the forum comes together to give solid advice on gaming matters.

Reading through the posts I think in the end the best strategy is two fold. First talk to the rest of the party on their own. See if they are actually upset by this, or if this is enjoyable for them, should make sure this isn't just the DM worrying too much. Second he must talk to the Strategist if there is a problem. I know both the strategist and DM in question, and the strategist strikes me as a reasonable fellow, so I don't think he will take too much offense, and should hopefully be reasonable.

He is a new DM and any solution that involves out playing the players is unlikely to work, he is still getting a grasp on the rules (He is using D&D 5e after switching over from Pathfinder, not that it really matters) so he has his hands full. Not to mention this is his first campaign and just getting used to being the DM can be challenging.

[noce]

This is a thing players should handle themselves. If, for example, players start to disagree in-game with the tactics proposed by said player, the problem is solved.
Decide with the old good majority rule, he will be in minority.
The only problem I can see is that they do not want to think to a solution by themselves, and just play effortlessly.

In my party we are five, and often we propose five different solutions to problems, or more. Just discuss about them in game and in-character.

[Yael]

My gaming group played a Zombie Survivor campaign once. One of the players is a person who is very smart (and I respect him), but he uses to steal the spotlight all the time, doing exactly as OP says, giving the ¨best¨ solution to every problem the ST may throw at us.

The solution? OoC talk, it gets annoying that one player wants to outshine everyone else by taking all the decisions, even if he or she was declared the ''leader'' or the brains. Just do it, and tell him to low a little his character's actions, or try to tell the DM to throw puzzles at him so he gets busy :smallbiggrin:It didn't turn out well, tho. As he still does that, but he's a pretty good DM, so there's that n_nU

[frost890]

One thing I see is you talked about a high Interest score but not about knowledge skills. Does he have knowledge warfare or tactics? Yes you can be crafty but that does not mean you know when to split a battle line, wait for them to come to you or perform a charge. Yes I am referring to unit tactics not small groups but you get my point. Thinking of something you can try and knowing what works are two different things.

I have also taken to keeping an initiative order when out of combat. It cuts out some of the people getting talked over and gives everyone a turn to do something before everything is decided on.