Thinking Tactically

[Mjolnirbear]

Ok. Love my players, but they will spend literally the whole session arguing what to do. About anything. But in combat, where I police this brutally (npcs listen in on discussions, forced dodge action if you spend six seconds trying to decide what to do) since they don't have time to discuss it, combat is simple and no tactics get used.

What I'd love is to to make a Tactics document. Something that gives ideas about how to use terrain and abilities to make combat easier and to make effective choices. The only rule they know is "don't split the party"

Some examples from other games:
- you are at the top of a staircase. The enemy approaches from the bottom of the stairs. Keep the high ground by making the stairs painful to climb. Caltrops, ball bearings, grease spell, Shape Water to cover them in ice.
- the Plug. You're in a 5' wide tunnel. The enemies are very strong but the char with the highest AC blocks the tunnel and dodges. The enemies will find it very difficult to hit him or get past him, protecting your allies who can simply pick off enemies at their leisure.
- marching order. Attacks almost never hit the middle, but they will hit from behind. Keep your squishies in the middle.
- the Shove: make your melee enemies back off so your ranged ally can shoot better. Or, knock them down so they are at half movement and easier to hit.

What I'd like from the playground is for similar ideas. Things that make combat easier. You can't change your class, or change the resources you have to work with, but you can use the environment to your advantage.

And then I'll hit them with everything on a training montage. Scar-faced veteran and everything.

Please help me with things to use in my training montage. Preferably in-character tactics, or at least in-character explanation why certain rules (I. E. cover) can help.

Thanks for reading

Actions: dodge, aid, hide, mark, shove, grapple, overrun, etc
Terrain: chokepoints, LoS cover, LoF cover, movement blocked, movement slowed
Lighting: cover, obscurity
Monsters: spread out for breath weapon or casters
Props: barrels, tables, chandeliers, curtains, boiling pots of stew
Hazards (I need to start including these!)
Situations: close quarters, exposed, down colleague, running away
Combat Roles: tank, striker, support, utility

[DragonBaneDM]

You could build them a tutorial level. Design a dungeon where monsters use all of these tactics, and then teach by showing, giving them a chance to copy the monster tactics in the next room. Have the goblins in one area spill a bucket of mouse skulls down the entrance stairs to make them difficult terrain, then later, whenever the party is inside the dungeon and there are enemies down below, guess what they find at the top?

Holy Pelor, it's a bucket of mouse skulls.

Repeat the next time by having a hobgoblin block a narrow hallway for less tanky allies behind them, and at the end of this long hallway, where it opens up into another room with enemies in it, the party can try it for themselves.

This won't happen over one session, but I think it'll be better than sitting down at the table and announcing "Today is tactics bootcamp! Behold, the SHOVE!"

[MrStabby]

I find it interesting that you police time. I can kind of see why - there are times when people not knowing what they are doing really slows the game down. On the other hand one of my groups likes nothing more that brutally hard campaigns with really tough encounters - 50 min mid combat discussing tactics, tools how many resources to conserve is not unheard of. That is just how they like to play - it is what they find fun and i am happy to oblige.

[Mjolnirbear]

I find it interesting that you police time. I can kind of see why - there are times when people not knowing what they are doing really slows the game down. On the other hand one of my groups likes nothing more that brutally hard campaigns with really tough encounters - 50 min mid combat discussing tactics, tools how many resources to conserve is not unheard of. That is just how they like to play - it is what they find fun and i am happy to oblige.

I've no objection to long involved discussions. Except in combat situations. No one in the middle of a fight has the luxury of time. So during combat, think up what you want to do on other players' turns.

And if they start discussing options in front of the enemy, well of course the enemy will pay attention.

But they can spend all session discussing how to avoid the fight, provided they're out of earshot.

[MrStabby]

I've no objection to long involved discussions. Except in combat situations. No one in the middle of a fight has the luxury of time. So during combat, think up what you want to do on other players' turns.

And if they start discussing options in front of the enemy, well of course the enemy will pay attention.

But they can spend all session discussing how to avoid the fight, provided they're out of earshot.

Oh this was in combat. I am not saying it is for every table - just my one. It is very much NOT good for simulating a battle. My players like combat as a puzzle (and lots of RP outside of combat) and working out how to "solve" a hard combat is fun for them.

[Mjolnirbear]

You could build them a tutorial level. Design a dungeon where monsters use all of these tactics, and then teach by showing, giving them a chance to copy the monster tactics in the next room. Have the goblins in one area spill a bucket of mouse skulls down the entrance stairs to make them difficult terrain, then later, whenever the party is inside the dungeon and there are enemies down below, guess what they find at the top?

Holy Pelor, it's a bucket of mouse skulls.

Repeat the next time by having a hobgoblin block a narrow hallway for less tanky allies behind them, and at the end of this long hallway, where it opens up into another room with enemies in it, the party can try it for themselves.

This won't happen over one session, but I think it'll be better than sitting down at the table and announcing "Today is tactics bootcamp! Behold, the SHOVE!"

My thought would have been a House Deneith veteran, in a low-risk scenario. Where he can (in full drill sergeant mode) halt things in the middle of combat and explain things. "Celes! Your bard just got stabbed! There's no point in being big and tough if you leave your support unprotected! Don't just run in like a fool! Marduk! Why is your wizard taking a nap? What is this passed two death saves nonsense?! That's two rounds he's not TOSSING FIRE!"

That kind of thing. But I hadn't thought of an actual Dungeon. Hmmm. I use pre-published materials all the time. I could get some practice in building encounters and making up a campaign. It's a good idea. And we have tons of time before they rescue Hekaton.

[Oramac]

I would also suggest breaking it up by area. The tactics one uses in a city are going to be much different than the tactics used in an open field, which are different than what you use in a forest, which are different....you get the idea.

[smcmike]

What does your group do currently, when faced with these sorts of tactics problems?

This seems like a goofy fun idea, but I’m worried that it might feel different from the other side of the table. Combat is largely a puzzle for the players, and being hand-held through a puzzle isn’t necessarily very much fun. Even after the “training levels,” subsequent combat may feel like it was designed to be solved by X or Y pre-discussed tactic, which may continue to reduce the players’ sense of agency. Or, you will end up using totally different scenarios, which limits the usefulness of the training.

[JellyPooga]

My thought would have been a House Deneith veteran, in a low-risk scenario. Where he can (in full drill sergeant mode) halt things in the middle of combat and explain things. "Celes! Your bard just got stabbed! There's no point in being big and tough if you leave your support unprotected! Don't just run in like a fool! Marduk! Why is your wizard taking a nap? What is this passed two death saves nonsense?! That's two rounds he's not TOSSING FIRE!"

I love this and may well use it the next time I introduce a group to a new game or with players new to roleplaying! It could be especially effective as part of an in media res start to the game where the PCs are thrown straight in to a combat, only to be dragged abrubtly out of it by their "instructor".

[Mjolnirbear]

What does your group do currently, when faced with these sorts of tactics problems?

This seems like a goofy fun idea, but I’m worried that it might feel different from the other side of the table. Combat is largely a puzzle for the players, and being hand-held through a puzzle isn’t necessarily very much fun. Even after the “training levels,” subsequent combat may feel like it was designed to be solved by X or Y pre-discussed tactic, which may continue to reduce the players’ sense of agency. Or, you will end up using totally different scenarios, which limits the usefulness of the training.

Easier to say what they don't do.

- They have never taken the dodge action except where I have imposed it as a result of them taking too long and missing their turn.
- they have never tried to overrun, tumble, mark, or Climb Onto Bigger Creature
- they almost never Shove or Grapple
- they never use terrain to their advantage

Now I admit culpability. I almost never bother with cover. It was thinking about using cover more that caused me to come up with this whole idea.

If my players thought of combat as a puzzle I would love that. But it's not. It's mostly 'deprive the meat sack of its health, repeat until done.' No thought is given on how to make the fight easier.

You can make a fight nigh-trivial by bottlenecking, for example. But they would rush in. You can make a bbeg easier to attack by shoving him prone, but they just roll attack rolls.

You have a great point about thinking hard how to present it. No one likes to be told they're 'playing wrong'. I'm not trying to wrongbadfun them, I'm trying to get them to try more of the tools in their combat toolbox. You can win a fight with attack rolls only. But theres far more options than that

[Mjolnirbear]

I would also suggest breaking it up by area. The tactics one uses in a city are going to be much different than the tactics used in an open field, which are different than what you use in a forest, which are different....you get the idea.

Good point, thank you

[smcmike]

If my players thought of combat as a puzzle I would love that. But it's not. It's mostly 'deprive the meat sack of its health, repeat until done.' No thought is given on how to make the fight easier.

Ok, it does sound like your players would benefit from this idea. If the tone is pretty light, the boot camp schtick could work fine.

An alternative would be to give them a seriously nasty combat-as-puzzle dungeon, but with some sort of a reset button. Make them figure it out the same way one figures out a video game - by trial and error and many many death screens.


In general, if you want your characters to outsmart the enemy, make sure the enemy is really dumb (but also very powerful). Zombies and constructs can be good for this. We had a nice tactical moment facing a bunch of zombies when we realized that we could basically use the front zombies as shields to protect our melee fighters from the more dangerous zombies in the second tank Perfect opportunity for the dodge plug.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Do you think it might be possible that the reason your players never think tactically is that you're not giving them TIME to do so? We are not our characters, after all. We don't have the same level of trained reactions and experience as even a low-level character. Instead of putting together what sounds like a slightly patronizing primer, why not just expand the turn limit to, oh, a minute or two? You could still police verbal discussions, but give your players TIME to think things through a little bit instead of having to blurt out the first thing that comes to mind.

[Oramac]

An alternative would be to give them a seriously nasty combat-as-puzzle dungeon, but with some sort of a reset button. Make them figure it out the same way one figures out a video game - by trial and error and many many death screens.

So......print up a crap ton of throwaway premade characters and run them through Tomb of Horrors.....

[Sigreid]

I'd suggest they come up with some standard tactics for situations they see repeatedly. It's what militaries do after all.

[Mjolnirbear]

Do you think it might be possible that the reason your players never think tactically is that you're not giving them TIME to do so? We are not our characters, after all. We don't have the same level of trained reactions and experience as even a low-level character. Instead of putting together what sounds like a slightly patronizing primer, why not just expand the turn limit to, oh, a minute or two? You could still police verbal discussions, but give your players TIME to think things through a little bit instead of having to blurt out the first thing that comes to mind.

Combat is urgent. If I gave them no time limit, it would easily quintuple combat time. Where it makes sense that they gave time to discuss, I give it. Combat us not that time.

And the timer (not even 6 seconds; practically speaking a minute is probably closer) isn't on if they're asking questions. Things their character could do at a glance, like how many baddies are there, is important info to have so questions that clarify the situation are absolutely fine. So are questions about what they can do. The problem is when they hem and haw and and can't decide what to do or which option is better.

And yes, I'm concerned it would sound patronising. I don't want to go to my players and say 'you're all dummies'. I'm aware of this and if you have suggestions on presenting it differently, as was earlier with the Dungeon suggestion, I'd welcome it. Barring that, what im really looking for are tactics you would use. Tactics that they AS PLAYERS would then be able to use for future characters to improve teamwork and make games more fun with more choices for themselves.

[Laserlight]

I would also suggest breaking it up by area. The tactics one uses in a city are going to be much different than the tactics used in an open field, which are different than what you use in a forest, which are different....you get the idea.

Well, not really. That is, what you do in an open area without cover is different from what you do in a constricted area with limited lines of sight, but it doesn't matter whether the first is "forest glade" or "mountain meadow" or "village green", or the second is "jungle" or "boulder field" or "the warehouse district". The effects of terrain are generally that it blocks or reduces Line of Sight, or Line of Fire, or Movement, or some combination thereof; it may also be Hazardous and/or Interactive. If you want to take cover, you don't really care whether that column you hide behind is a tree or a stone pillar, as long as it blocks LoS and LoF.

One problem I often have as a player is that the DM doesn't use terrain. "Here's a giant. He's on the road. You're on the road. Open fields to left and right. Roll initiative." Nothing to hide behind, nothing to block movement. If you want the players to use terrain, make sure you actually give them terrain! I keep this list handy when planning an encounter to make remind myself not to just say "Trees here, clearing there."

Battlefield*
● Choke*points,**funnels**
● Block LoS:*fog,*shrouds,*darkness,*curtains**
● Block LoS, LoF, movement:*tree,**boulder,*statue,**pillar, wall*
● Block movement:*pit,*chasm,*river,*portcullis,*barricade ,*arrow*slit*
● Reduce movement:*rubble,*mud,*water,*broken*floor,*brush*
● Hazards:*fire,*lava,*boiling*mud,*trap,*acid*pool*
● Booby*trap:*invisible*hazard*or*obstacle which remains dangerous after being discovered**
● Props:*table,*chair,*altar,*barrel,*baskets,*cande labra,*crate, oil jar*
● Elevation: One way movement (jumping down)*
● Open*space**
*
Note that your different combat roles will want different terrain. A tank may want to catch the enemy in difficult going. A skirmisher such as a rogue doesn't want difficult going-- he wants something to block LoF and LoS but not impede movement too much. A ranged attacker wants to have good movement and lots of cover where he is, and the reverse where the enemy is.

Different roles may also want different tactics. In the last session I ran, the monk proned the boss; the archer rogue was exasperated, because that meant he had disadvantage on his shot.

Encourage players to discuss a few general combat situations (one main monster, or one for each of us, or a lot of mooks, or we're surrounded), what they want to do in each one, and how they can help each other out. When I'm playing a caster, I tell my party "If you run into an area where a fireball should go, I will assume you don't mind getting fireballed". If the fighter or barbarian has Athletics, suggest that shoving the enemy prone can mean that his next attack has Advantage, and more importantly, so do the paladin and rogue's attacks (depending on how you work initiative). Point out to the cleric that she might do more damage by casting Bless on the pally and the rogue than if she runs up and bops someone with her mace for 1d6+3.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Combat is urgent. If I gave them no time limit, it would easily quintuple combat time. Where it makes sense that they gave time to discuss, I give it. Combat us not that time.
But the players are not the characters. They're not expert warriors and tomb raiders who spend their lives doing this crap, who can spend hours and days practicing and discussing and studying tactics. They're a bunch of nerds who like to pretend to be elves, and who probably only have a few hours a week to spend on the game.

There's nothing wrong with demanding fast-paced, instant-decision combat, but it's a goal that's pretty much diametrically opposed to combat-as-puzzle and tactical thinking. You want players to think through their actions more? Give them time to do so-- without that, nothing you do will really help. You don't need indefinitely long turns and unlimited cross-talk, but you're not going to get casual gamers to use effective tactics without at least a little more time.

[Tanarii]

Suggest to players they might want to think about and discuss general tactics and set up some generic plans of action. In my pickup groups, the party often spends time doing this at the start of session.

Suggest that they might want to take the time to plan pre-battle, when the situation allows and their scouting has given them specific actionable information.

I've also found that new players will rapidly learn from enemy / monster tactics. Simple things like grappling a tank out of the line of combat, or tanks dodging whole tactically blocking a narrow area. Ot the group knowing to retreat early instead of waiting until it's way too late. Like ... during round 1, ideally.

Edit: on fast combat and not being allowed to discuss during tactics in combat, I agree with you completely. They can discuss outside of combat. Both of these enhance verisimilitude.

[KorvinStarmast]

This is a challenge to any DM that's been with the game as long as I've been playing it. IMO, it takes a session zero to set the expectation: once combat starts, we will emulate some of the chaos by requiring you to be ready to go when your turn is called. If you still want to think, next player's turn. you get (1, 2, 3.. pick a number ... I think 3's the most I've seen that doesn't bog things down) questions to the DM about "do I see this, where is that, what is that?" ... and then make a decision.

It keeps the game play moving, and at the same time adds a bit of chaos to emulate the six second round that's going all at once in a turn based game. Sometimes, game mechanics are just a thing to deal with. Initiative is a good enough tool for the purposes of this particular game.

Take your turn, make a decision, tell the DM what you are doing, or what stunt you are attempting (swing from that chandelier, bard!) and go with it. Play on!

[Quoz]

I've had a GM put my party through something similar, though it was more of a spellcaster focused encounter. The party was trying to find a wizards college that did not want to be found (3.5e Dragonlance if I recall). The party was opposed by several groups of low level wizards that had ample time to prepare, knew the area well, and had divination support to track our movements. But their objective wasn't to kill us, only to divert us and keep us from finding the wizard tower. It was a GM's course in effective use of low level non damage spells. Grease on an incline combined with gust of wind, illusions and pit traps, and my personal favorite: casting silence on the first watch when we made camp, invisibility cast on the sleeping party members through familiars, and illusions of said party members running through the woods to split the party. Total chaos ensues, everyone eventually gets separated and succumbs to a sleep spell, and the party wakes up in a clearing the next morning to a fruit basket and a no trespassing sign.

End point is, show don't tell. If you want to showcase tactics, use a situation where damage is a bad idea - the party has to stop a charmed noble, but striking him caries a death penalty regardless of the reason. They have to infiltrate a vastly superior force, where combat would be suicidal. Make them go as emissaries to settle between warring clans, where both sides use guerrilla style hit and run tactics. This is half the fun of running the scenarios, providing an interesting problem and waiting to see how your players get around it.

[Mjolnirbear]

Well, not really. That is, what you do in an open area without cover is different from what you do in a constricted area with limited lines of sight, but it doesn't matter whether the first is "forest glade" or "mountain meadow" or "village green", or the second is "jungle" or "boulder field" or "the warehouse district". The effects of terrain are generally that it blocks or reduces Line of Sight, or Line of Fire, or Movement, or some combination thereof; it may also be Hazardous and/or Interactive. If you want to take cover, you don't really care whether that column you hide behind is a tree or a stone pillar, as long as it blocks LoS and LoF.

One problem I often have as a player is that the DM doesn't use terrain. "Here's a giant. He's on the road. You're on the road. Open fields to left and right. Roll initiative." Nothing to hide behind, nothing to block movement. If you want the players to use terrain, make sure you actually give them terrain! I keep this list handy when planning an encounter to make remind myself not to just say "Trees here, clearing there."

Battlefield*
● Choke*points,**funnels**
● Block LoS:*fog,*shrouds,*darkness,*curtains**
● Block LoS, LoF, movement:*tree,**boulder,*statue,**pillar, wall*
● Block movement:*pit,*chasm,*river,*portcullis,*barricade ,*arrow*slit*
● Reduce movement:*rubble,*mud,*water,*broken*floor,*brush*
● Hazards:*fire,*lava,*boiling*mud,*trap,*acid*pool*
● Booby*trap:*invisible*hazard*or*obstacle which remains dangerous after being discovered**
● Props:*table,*chair,*altar,*barrel,*baskets,*cande labra,*crate, oil jar*
● Elevation: One way movement (jumping down)*
● Open*space**
*
Note that your different combat roles will want different terrain. A tank may want to catch the enemy in difficult going. A skirmisher such as a rogue doesn't want difficult going-- he wants something to block LoF and LoS but not impede movement too much. A ranged attacker wants to have good movement and lots of cover where he is, and the reverse where the enemy is.

Different roles may also want different tactics. In the last session I ran, the monk proned the boss; the archer rogue was exasperated, because that meant he had disadvantage on his shot.

Encourage players to discuss a few general combat situations (one main monster, or one for each of us, or a lot of mooks, or we're surrounded), what they want to do in each one, and how they can help each other out. When I'm playing a caster, I tell my party "If you run into an area where a fireball should go, I will assume you don't mind getting fireballed". If the fighter or barbarian has Athletics, suggest that shoving the enemy prone can mean that his next attack has Advantage, and more importantly, so do the paladin and rogue's attacks (depending on how you work initiative). Point out to the cleric that she might do more damage by casting Bless on the pally and the rogue than if she runs up and bops someone with her mace for 1d6+3.

This is exactly what I wanted. Thank you. Everything goes on the list!

[Mjolnirbear]

But the players are not the characters. They're not expert warriors and tomb raiders who spend their lives doing this crap, who can spend hours and days practicing and discussing and studying tactics. They're a bunch of nerds who like to pretend to be elves, and who probably only have a few hours a week to spend on the game.

There's nothing wrong with demanding fast-paced, instant-decision combat, but it's a goal that's pretty much diametrically opposed to combat-as-puzzle and tactical thinking. You want players to think through their actions more? Give them time to do so-- without that, nothing you do will really help. You don't need indefinitely long turns and unlimited cross-talk, but you're not going to get casual gamers to use effective tactics without at least a little more time.

They have time. They have time to ask questions. They have time during other players turns to plan. More time is not the issue.

I believe we are at crosspurposes here and this debate is not what I was looking for anyways. I'd rather not get sidetracked. Thank you for your input.

[RickAllison]

In combat, I try to give each player up to five minutes to decide their moves, but I strictly enforce discussing tactics between characters. Each PC gets a maximum of six seconds of communication. The seasoned PCs may have enough experience to get more time to think about the turn, but they are limited in how much they can communicate. If they want to coordinate an intricate plan, they better do so beforehand.

[KorvinStarmast]

They have time. They have time to ask questions. They have time during other players turns to plan. More time is not the issue. Indeed, wasting the limited time any game has allotted to it seems to be the issue.

[Mjolnirbear]

I've had a GM put my party through something similar, though it was more of a spellcaster focused encounter. The party was trying to find a wizards college that did not want to be found (3.5e Dragonlance if I recall). The party was opposed by several groups of low level wizards that had ample time to prepare, knew the area well, and had divination support to track our movements. But their objective wasn't to kill us, only to divert us and keep us from finding the wizard tower. It was a GM's course in effective use of low level non damage spells. Grease on an incline combined with gust of wind, illusions and pit traps, and my personal favorite: casting silence on the first watch when we made camp, invisibility cast on the sleeping party members through familiars, and illusions of said party members running through the woods to split the party. Total chaos ensues, everyone eventually gets separated and succumbs to a sleep spell, and the party wakes up in a clearing the next morning to a fruit basket and a no trespassing sign.

End point is, show don't tell. If you want to showcase tactics, use a situation where damage is a bad idea - the party has to stop a charmed noble, but striking him caries a death penalty regardless of the reason. They have to infiltrate a vastly superior force, where combat would be suicidal. Make them go as emissaries to settle between warring clans, where both sides use guerrilla style hit and run tactics. This is half the fun of running the scenarios, providing an interesting problem and waiting to see how your players get around it.

I love your story! It's great! And it uses enemies intelligently.

I'm of two minds about tell vs show. Show is much less risk of appearing patronising. But it doesn't have the option of review. Why did that work, or why did it go wrong?

Then again, I've been looking for an excuse to use Tucker's Kobolds. I could use this for showing them.

Perhaps a DMPC? No, it'd be worse with that I think

[Alatar]

What I'd love is to to make a Tactics document. Something that gives ideas about how to use terrain and abilities to make combat easier and to make effective choices. The only rule they know is "don't split the party"


If you players a pretty new to the game, I could imagine the usefulness of this sort of exercise. But I've seen some unpleasant outcomes when this issue is pursued. In my experience, which is that of playing with pretty much the same group of people for many, many years, some people are not tactically inclined at all and, further, resent guidance along those lines. We had a real blowup over this in 4e and ended up losing a player. Obviously, we did not handle the issue well, and in hindsight might have avoided the ugliness.

All I really am trying to point out here is that the potential for ugliness does exist. Some players will never engage with the game tactically, not really. Others will, and might well benefit from some pointers if they are fairly inexperienced. And some players will try to think and act tactically but be really bad at it. That's my experience.

[Tanarii]

In combat, I try to give each player up to five minutes to decide their moves, but I strictly enforce discussing tactics between characters. Each PC gets a maximum of six seconds of communication. The seasoned PCs may have enough experience to get more time to think about the turn, but they are limited in how much they can communicate. If they want to coordinate an intricate plan, they better do so beforehand.
Wow. A 6 player + 1 DM combat can take up to 35 minutes per round? For a short 3 round combat, that's up to an hour and a half of play time. :smalleek:

That's no more than 10 minutes at my table. Typically 5 min if it's tactically simple.

[KorvinStarmast]

Some players will never engage with the game tactically, not really. Others will, and might well benefit from some pointers if they are fairly inexperienced. And some players will try to think and act tactically but be really bad at it. That's my experience. You raise a good point. I came to D&D from a wargaming background, so I always thought tactically to a certain extent. (Heh, and in those days we played a lot of micro armor and some miniatures table top combat ...)

Those who don't come from that background need a little coaching/mentoring, and as you pointed out you can't force it. There are a lot of Elan's out there: nice people who are fun to play with, but tactically inept or at least indifferent to some of the nuances. They are in the party, work together anyway. :smallcool:

[Mjolnirbear]

Suggest to players they might want to think about and discuss general tactics and set up some generic plans of action. In my pickup groups, the party often spends time doing this at the start of session.

Suggest that they might want to take the time to plan pre-battle, when the situation allows and their scouting has given them specific actionable information.

I've also found that new players will rapidly learn from enemy / monster tactics. Simple things like grappling a tank out of the line of combat, or tanks dodging whole tactically blocking a narrow area. Ot the group knowing to retreat early instead of waiting until it's way too late. Like ... during round 1, ideally.

Edit: on fast combat and not being allowed to discuss during tactics in combat, I agree with you completely. They can discuss outside of combat. Both of these enhance verisimilitude.

I'm picturing a movie scene along the lines of "remember Berlin?" and they all think "this tactic that won the day in Berlin!" I'd love it if that happened.

As for pre-planning, that's an option I like. But they would need to have a good idea what works.

In hindsight, what I should have done while introducing people to the game was to have each fight showcase the different options, kind of like a tutorial in a video game. But I was freaking out about starting to DM and never thought about it. I accept responsibility for not having done a good job of teaching the game and what options they can use, so this is me picking up the slack. Hehe or trying, anyways!

[Mjolnirbear]

If you players a pretty new to the game, I could imagine the usefulness of this sort of exercise. But I've seen some unpleasant outcomes when this issue is pursued. In my experience, which is that of playing with pretty much the same group of people for many, many years, some people are not tactically inclined at all and, further, resent guidance along those lines. We had a real blowup over this in 4e and ended up losing a player. Obviously, we did not handle the issue well, and in hindsight might have avoided the ugliness.

All I really am trying to point out here is that the potential for ugliness does exist. Some players will never engage with the game tactically, not really. Others will, and might well benefit from some pointers if they are fairly inexperienced. And some players will try to think and act tactically but be really bad at it. That's my experience.

Starmaster is right, this is a great point. It could be the case with my group and I'm just not experienced enough to recognize it. If this works as well as I hope, then they will either have learned, or I will have that question answered (or some combination thereof).

[Mjolnirbear]

You raise a good point. I came to D&D from a wargaming background, so I always thought tactically to a certain extent. (Heh, and in those days we played a lot of micro armor and some miniatures table top combat ...)

Those who don't come from that background need a little coaching/mentoring, and as you pointed out you can't force it. There are a lot of Elan's out there: nice people who are fun to play with, but tactically inept or at least indifferent to some of the nuances. They are in the party, work together anyway. :smallcool:

Lol I played Warhammer Fantasy for a while too. Maybe that's why this irks me. But the discussion (read: arguing) implies to me that they're trying to think tactics. They just don't have the experience and the hardcore rules practice to do it fast. If I give them the experience then this might work out.

[RickAllison]

Wow. A 6 player + 1 DM combat can take up to 35 minutes per round? For a short 3 round combat, that's up to an hour and a half of play time. :smalleek:

That's no more than 10 minutes at my table. Typically 5 min if it's tactically simple.

I didn't say they used all that time. But when the druid is trying to figure out what combination of spell and Wild Shape will save the party from their poorly-planned assault, that is when the turn can take five minutes. Or more, but the turn is cut off.

[Tanarii]

As for pre-planning, that's an option I like. But they would need to have a good idea what works.Give them a few suggested situations to think about to start with. If they even start thinking at the most basic level, it'll help.

How to assault when they're in a confined space (corridor or small room)?
How to assault when they're facing foes with superior ranged attacks and they need to close the distance?
How to assault when they've got superior ranged attacks but need to keep the foes at a distance?
Is there an order of battle (do they try to form lines of battle combat or not)?
Do they pursue retreating enemies (usually to try and stop them from bringing reinforcements), or do they let them go and regroup?
What to do they do when they're surprised?
How do they handle a retreat? (Who is responsible for signalling it, what criteria should they use to judge it, and how does the party go about it?)

One thing that will make a huge difference is if the party can generally expect to win encounters they are up against if they play sufficiently smart, or not. My players know there is no assumption they can defeat any enemy they come across. Most groups use a general rule of retreating automatically if they're surprised, unless they have decided for a specific area they can handle being jumped. They also make the decision to retreat very early on in combat, both because they know its possible for them to potentially be crushed by a more powerful enemy, but also because D&D combat pretty much requires that anyway.


I didn't say they used all that time. But when the druid is trying to figure out what combination of spell and Wild Shape will save the party from their poorly-planned assault, that is when the turn can take five minutes. Or more, but the turn is cut off.
That's amazingly generous. If a given player is doing something particularly complicated on their turn, I'll give them a minute to execute, possibly even more if totally something totally awesome in an important fight. But they need to know WHAT they're doing almost immediately when their turn starts.

[Potato_Priest]

In combat tactics is tough if you can't talk, especially when you're trying to take advantage of terrain. Many terrain situations are a sort of all the party's in or nobody's in situation, where anyone who is outside cover will get mowed down quickly and the rest of the party will have to break cover to save them, having gained nothing from a futile attempt at tactical play.

As a sort of compromise I'd give your players a few minutes at the start of each combat (before anyone takes a turn) to discuss tactics before you throw them into the thick of things. Remember that the characters are way better at thinking quickly and working as a team than your players are.

[Tanarii]

Remember that the characters are way better at thinking quickly and working as a team than your players are.That's an assumption, and not one I particularly hold to as a general rule.

Generally, experienced players start off FAR better at group tactics than the PCs would start off, given they've had multiple characters under their belt and sometimes even experience playing with the particular group of players before. Even new-to-D&D players are at worst generally on par with a level 1 character in a brand new party.

If it's relatively new players playing either a higher level group of PCs that have worked together before, or a new group that's specially supposed to have trained together, the assumption might be correct. But for most campaigns I've ever seen, that's the exception, not the rule.

Edit: Another exception would be if the player is used to thinking in chess-like terms with all the time in the world, and specifically trying to play a PC who is a quick-reaction & snap decision person. That's a clash of player & PC personality that would result in your assumption being correct.

[Laserlight]

In combat tactics is tough if you can't talk, especially when you're trying to take advantage of terrain.

Point out to them that they can discuss their tactics while they're in the mule cart on the way to Monsterville. Point out to the archer that "at a distance, behind cover" is a lot better place for him than "in melee, ahead of the rest of the party". Figure out a couple of Immediate Action Drills and standard procedures. "This is our assault stack when we're going through a door. This is what we do when attacked in an open area. Marie, in general, you take down any casters. Tsao, in general, if there's a boss, you keep him occupied but if there's a herd of baddies around him, don't wade into them--wait until after the fireball. Josh....smosh."

You can have a few code words--for example, in one campaign, if I said "Option" it meant "Shelby, here is a target I can't damage. I'll seize him and hold him in place; you haymaker him into the sub-basement."

[opaopajr]

I love your desire here and think you should do a mix of things suggested here. :smallcool:

First off, make the setting context present. Great advice. Lines of Sight, Lanes of Fire, Choke Points, Difficult Terrain, Areas of Mobility, Hazards, Hazards-in-Waiting, etc. Context, context, context!

Second, have sentient (especially sapient) creatures use their environment to their advantage. Most creatures are not suicidal machines with perfect morale. Which means: a) they will retreat to where they feel safer, and b) will use everything they have for an advantage to stay alive.

There's a reason the big joke 'ultimate technique' in Ranma 1/2 is "Retreat." 'It's harder than it looks'... to the prideful. But living things want to live, and that's often the stronger imperative. NPCs teach such survival techniques to PCs through experience.

(You may also want to remove the incentive that "dead things = XP." Add other methods to gain XP, at a minimum. If even partial XP is alloted for survival, (rather than full,) then fights to the death become a less sane expectation.)

Third, you may want to consider using Action Declaration before each round. The fair order is giving yourself, the GM, time to decide NPCs' actions first. This does two things: 1) it gives players time to decide, and 2) prevents GM temptation of metagaming. Next have players declare their intended actions. Then run their turns, which should run like clockwork, but give them 6 second windows to yell battle info to each other. Finally, watch as coordination, even out-of-combat strategizing, builds up due to the challenge.

Reason why is this plays harder on stressing teamwork than blow-by-blow micro-managing. A game you can 'Pause' places the onus of failure on an individual's each little misstep because you are assuming perfect knowledge up until that very point of action, ("future knowledge,"). But Declared Actions denies such up-to-the-second "future knowledge" and thus places the onus upon the group's coordination to anticipate such commonplace contexts.

It's rather amazing how much that old game rule shifts power dynamics from an individualistic spotlighting game to a group coordinating game. There really was a method to the old way's madness. :smallamused:

Fourth, I love the idea of Sample Battles. In fact, I think it would be a great treat to offer Sample Battles as a tactical training lesson in between those quick early levels. Perhaps an homage to Training to Next Level for the first tier (lvls 1-4). Nothing mandatory, or even beneficial, just a bonus round where the GM can play sapients full throttle without any permanent consequences.

You'll be surprised how many people ignore the real tactics of featureless plains. The value of mounts, dispersal, going prone, and coordinating ranged fire is a large tactical lesson on how to survive without cover. But to play that as a war game skirmish, without threat of death, will probably be invaluable for the players.

Best of Luck! :smallsmile:

[Grod_The_Giant]

Point out to them that they can discuss their tactics while they're in the mule cart on the way to Monsterville. Point out to the archer that "at a distance, behind cover" is a lot better place for him than "in melee, ahead of the rest of the party". Figure out a couple of Immediate Action Drills and standard procedures. "This is our assault stack when we're going through a door. This is what we do when attacked in an open area. Marie, in general, you take down any casters. Tsao, in general, if there's a boss, you keep him occupied but if there's a herd of baddies around him, don't wade into them--wait until after the fireball. Josh....smosh."

You can have a few code words--for example, in one campaign, if I said "Option" it meant "Shelby, here is a target I can't damage. I'll seize him and hold him in place; you haymaker him into the sub-basement."
That's the sort of thing the CHARACTERS should/would certainly do, but the PLAYERS might not find it fun. (Would YOU want to spend an hour or more of your precious table-time hashing that sort of thing out?) Particularly if, as seems to be the case, they're not inclined to tactics in the first place. You can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn-- and if your group doesn't really enjoy an aspect of the GAME, you shouldn't try to force it.

[Tanarii]

That's fine. But there's no reason to allow them to do it in combat, if they do want to do it. If they want to do it, do it BEFORE combat, not during. If they don't want to play tactically, then don't play tactically at all.

[Potato_Priest]

This is why I usually encourage everyone in the party to learn giant eagle or blink dog or yeti or something. It makes it ludicrously unlikely that the enemy can actually listen to your conversations without a comprehend languages spell.

[Laserlight]

That's the sort of thing the CHARACTERS should/would certainly do, but the PLAYERS might not find it fun. (Would YOU want to spend an hour or more of your precious table-time hashing that sort of thing out?) Particularly if, as seems to be the case, they're not inclined to tactics in the first place. You can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn-- and if your group doesn't really enjoy an aspect of the GAME, you shouldn't try to force it.

Tactics is inherently part of the combat pillar. A player can insist on using suicidal tactics, and if that's what he actually wants, I wouldn't try to make him change (I've had two such people in my group); but his being suicidal doesn't just affect him, it affects the other players as well. Just the same way that if someone insists on singing bawdy orcish songs and playing bagpipes offkey, the rest of the group should take that into account before they bring him to the negotiating table.

Some players might be willing to learn, but have never been taught. I've found that situation fairly often; of course, if you're afraid to discuss the subject, you won't know which is which. It doesn't take an hour, though, just "Hey, Grog, I can't heal as fast as you're taking damage. How about come stand in this doorway so only one of them can attack you at a time?" Or what I did a couple of weeks ago, "Man, we really got hammered. What could we have done differently?"