Roleplaying as a tactical genius

[Bannan_mantis]

Many times in my games I have played a cunning strategist whether they be someone who manipulates the enemy, controls the battlefield, fakes retreats etc. but I have overtime come into a dilemma, how would I role-play as a character who is 10 times better at strategy than me? I can think of a few things such as copying historical methods and such but at the same time those don't always work out so does anyone know any sort of trick to it?

[Koo Rehtorb]

Play a game where you can represent tactical genius with an actual mechanical skill that you are demonstrably good at.

[Bannan_mantis]

Well of course I know that, most of the people I play who are tactical geniuses have those types of mechanics I am thinking about the purely role-play aspect and times where those abilities won't be useful like how do you make yourself look and seem like someone who is pretty tactical

[Darth Ultron]

Well, if your game has the right mechanics, just take the skill or whatever that gives your character a +2 to combat.


Otherwise....well, you have to do it For Real.

1.Step One is knowing Real tactical things. You can get a book or just search online, there is plenty to read.
2.Know your game rules. Easy enough.
3.Know your DM.
4.Get everyone, DM and Players on the same page.

Now, One and Two are easy enough. Real world logic will tell you ''cover is a good thing'' and most games have rules for ''cover''. And you want to make sure the real world idea, like taking cover, has a game mechanical effect that is worth it. If ''cover" gives you a +1 armor bonus, you might want to skip it, for example.

It does all come down to three though: it will all depend on your DM.

First off, your DM is likely not a tactical genius. Second, some DMs don't use or ''like'' all the game rules. So even if the game has rules for ''cover'', the DM might just ignore them. And if you try and use them it won't go over well with the DM and could disrupt the game. It gets worse when other players also don't ''like'' some rules and don't want them used.

Third, if the DM has no understanding of tactics, then using them is utterly pointless. You can take ten minutes to describe some amazing tactics, and the DM will just be like ''whatever roll for combat". Really, you can't use tactics unless your DM both understands them AND wants them used in the game.

Fourth, a lot of even simple tactics often don't have hard game rules. You can do them, sure, but there is no game mechanical effect. So, you do the tactics....and nothing happens. Of course, this does go right back to Three, above as well.

Next, you need everyone on the same page. Tactics require that the game is played more ''combat is war'' and not ''combat is sport". And even more so, ''combat is deadly to the characters" and not "happy time everyone is safe". If the DM is just going to have monsters stand their and wait to die...and the players can just stumble over and drop some dice and kill the monsters...then tactics won't matter.

So, if you can get in a game like that...then you can use Tactics. Good luck finding one...chance are you will simply need to DM it yourself.

You might want to read Murphy's Laws of Combat: http://www.military-quotes.com/murphy.htm

And here is some, sigh, video gamey, combat stuff...but it is worth a look: http://ttp3.dslyecxi.com/8_tactics.php

[Koo Rehtorb]

Well of course I know that, most of the people I play who are tactical geniuses have those types of mechanics I am thinking about the purely role-play aspect and times where those abilities won't be useful like how do you make yourself look and seem like someone who is pretty tactical

Generally, to play a person smarter than yourself, say less, at least about the subject in question. Put all your energy into those occasional moments of tactical brilliance and give yourself as few chances as possible to screw it up.

[Breelander]

I remember reading once that great generals are defined as generals who command the winning side in 5 or more battles, and roughly 3 percent of generals qualify as 'great generals'. If you flip a coin to determine the victor of each battle, the odds of winning the coin toss five times in a row are 1 in 32, which is pretty close to the percentage of generals who are lauded for their winning strategy. Just something your thread made me think of.

As for your question, it's always challenging to roleplay a character that is much more knowledgable in any particular area than you are in real life. And of course, it would depend on how much of your gameplay revolves around large scale battles where your characters tactical skill would come into play. If your GM is willing, you might work out something where he or she gives you some information about what the other side is planning, to represent your characters ability to predict an enemies potential actions and counter them. Or give your side a bonus to dice rolls to reflect the tactical advantage that your skill provides. This seems to be the way that most mechanical skills work, the player rolls against the 'strategist' skill and then applies a bonus to to the initiative or hit rolls of the side that he or she is commanding.


From a roleplaying standpoint, you can sprinkle your conversations with quotes from Sun Tzu, Von Clausewitz, Macchiavelli, etc (dressed up in setting appropriate names if your game isn't set on our world)

[Tanarii]

Play a game where you can represent tactical genius with an actual mechanical skill that you are demonstrably good at.this is prett much it.

If the game doesnt have mechanical skills as a tactical genius in it that replaces or augments player skill, characters are precisely as genius (or not) as the player skill.

This holds true for everything in RPGs. A character is either as skilled as the player, or as as skilled as the mechanic that replaces player skill, or as skilled as the players skill at using the mechanics.

[RazorChain]

Read Sun Tzu's art of war and Von Clausewitz' On War. Then write down things that your character would say as quotes.

Or just save yourself some time because Clausewitz is a hard read if you aren't a burning military strategy enthusiast and google quotes from Sun Tzu and Von Clausewitz.

[Honest Tiefling]

How do you feel about asking the DM? They might be able to give hints or to give ideas of when ideas are a little too oddball, if you don't mind some nudging here and there.

After all, what's the point of being a genius if no one recognizes it? And who controls the NPCs?

[Pelle]

Discuss all strategical and tactical options as a group, and get buy-in to attribute the decisions to your character.

[ChamHasNoRoom]

Mechanically, as has been said, take "tactical genius" feats.

So far as actually having good tactics, don't focus on being clever. Focus on efficient victory. That's what good tactics is, so if you can win with minimal resource loss just by walking directly into the bad guys and fighting them because your numbers are bigger than theirs, then just do that. Reserve cleverness for when you have something to gain by being unconventional. Also, read the Art of War. It takes like an hour to finish and is pretty much nothing else but a collection of pithy aphorisms about combat.

[Frozen_Feet]

My advice is simple: don't.

More precisely, drop the "genius" part. Even with cursory knowledge of tactics, it's possible to play a character who is interested, serious and focused on a thing. Just drop the expectation of actually being better than you are. That doesn't work for a game where you ultimately are responsible for how well you do.

Your GM can cut you some slack and fake it, pretending your achievements are more impressive in the eyes of NPCs than they are in truth, but the most you can do about that is ask.

I know "master tactician/strategist/whatever" is popular archetype in fiction. But a book, movie or even a play-by-post game is different from a tabletop game simply due to the amount of time there is to think about the next move. This allows for artificial brilliance which won't come naturally on the spot.

[Sinewmire]

The only thing I could suggest would be some sort of "Preparedness" ability where you could agree with the DM to have retroactively prepared for a situation you find yourself in.

ie. "I would have been aware of the likelihood of that flanking manoeuvre, would it be fair to say I'd have prepared X as a countermeasure?"

It's no different to playing a wizard - you are not expected to know magic in real life.

[Mordaedil]

I think at some point you just have to bite the bullet and accept that your own abilities don't match up to what you desired to be by default.

Just try your best at using the rules as presented to you and let the game itself turn out whether you really are a strategic genious or not.

If you want to strive for it no matter what, cheat. I don't mean OOC cheat, I mean in character. Cheat your encounters. Place traps, give your side all of the advantages you can think of. Use all of the special weapon rules to prepare for any kind of combat encounter. Throw alchemist fire at your enemies, trip up their formations.

Be a bastard, basically.

[Frozen_Feet]

It's no different to playing a wizard - you are not expected to know magic in real life.

Incorrect.

You're not expected to be able to do magic because the fictional forces that allow it to operate are assumed to not exist.

That's not the same as not knowing.

For example, if playing a magic-user, you, the player are expected to know that spells are written in books and cast by reciting them aloud. You are expected to know that, say, preparing a certain spell takes N hours of preparation, and that once cast, it will fade from your mind.

So on and so forth. The level of detail you need to remember varies based on the game; it can be as little as knowing the spell's name, what it does, and how many abstract mana units it costs. Or it can be as much as remembering Lord's prayer in full in Latin and the exact pattern you need to draw using the blood of your virgin sacrifice.

Now, a reasonable GM will found this expectation on having handed you the necessary information. A kind GM will remind you if you forgot something you should remember. But for any game there's a level of knowledge that you, the player, must indeed possess to make operational decisions as a wizard.

Furthermore, the less you know, the less you will, and will be able to, roleplay as your character. Because you not knowing necessitates higher level of abstraction, which subsequently leads you to not knowing what your character is actually doing, or how, or why. At some point, you cross the line where you are giving inputs entirely unrelated to what is happening in the game, immersion is lost, and so is any shared imaginary space, because neither you nor anyone else knows what to imagine anymore.

Furthermore, magic frequently has more leeway than tactics, because magic in games is mostly arbitrary fictional construct. The GM and players can just decide how it works, decide which knowledge is correct and which is not. Tactics are less generous, because for any game with mathematically defineable move space, there actually exists objectively good and objectively bad choices. Additionally, making those choices is a good portion of what the player is supposed to do at the table. Abstracting them away concretely reduces player decision making and agency.

---

Tl;dr: to effectively play RPGs, a player must have some understanding of tactics, because tactical decision making is core component of gameplay. If you abstract or BS that away, you will just do away with the player's tactical input.

[NichG]

I guess the question for me would be, what is your motivation in playing such a character? If you want to depict that aspect of a character, then mechanics can help you with it. But if it's because you want to understand 'what is it to be a tactical genius?' then you have to work at a level removed from that - straight out mechanical benefits don't do any good if they don't actually let you understand that state of being any better.

There's a general trick which I think is pretty effective for this sort of thing, which is to think twice. In most cases, there are lots of ways you could be thinking about a given situation, but you'll pick a way that feels automatic or natural - e.g. if you worry about threat, you'll think about threats; if you worry about success, you'll think about that; and so on. If you just remind yourself 'also think about this as if it were a puzzle presented to a tactician' then, without necessarily actually being better at tactics, you'll have two views of the situation where others will have one. That alone can let you make a decent show at portraying a tactician - at the very least, the idea that you 'think of all things in terms of abstract tactics' becomes possible to capture without too much actual tactical insight, because most people will still be at the stage of 'I feel threatened' or 'I feel like I can crush them' or whatever.

To move beyond that, you can look at how to take that second view and align it with things that actually work out. Learn when to listen to it and when to ignore it. Get better at recognizing when 'I'm being very tactical' isn't sufficient to actually make good tactical decisions, and then respond to that. If you've got an impersonal point of view you can selectively attune to or ignore, that's quite a lot to work with already to establish a character.

[Cluedrew]

Lose gracefully.

Other people have said some very good stuff, but this is one that I think has been missed. The most convincing tactical genius I ever read was introduced while recovering from injuries he obtained in a battle he lost. The majority of the book was pretty much the build up and positioning for the next battle, so maybe strategy might be a better word. If there was another thing that story did well, it is that that general/commander guy not the only one doing significant stuff. There were intelligence officers and soldiers and mercenary transport crews who did important stuff. This might just be the other PCs, but if you can have followers and NPC allies, use those as well.

[Thrudd]

Your character isn't going to perform better than you yourself can make them perform. I'm not sure how a person would "act" like a tactical genius other than to actually perform well in battles - it isn't a personality trait, it's a description of an ability and results. Maybe your character thinks they are a tactical genius. Whenever something doesn't go the way you want in a fight, you should make excuses and blame it on everyone else not doing what they were supposed to do (because obviously you are always doing the most tactically optimal thing, as a tactical genius would), or tell everyone what they should have done, the really smart things you would have done in their position. Talk about battles from your character's past that may or may not have happened and the genius tactics he employed to win them. Whether this becomes a comedic or hypocritical or delusional character is up to you - you'll need to back up your character's words with actual results.

You truly can't play a character that is smarter than you are, in a game where the players have to actually think and do things. You can play a character with certain sorts of knowledge and information that you personally don't have, but you are still responsible for knowing how to use that information and making good decisions. In D&D type games, tactical information usually is not something you can get mechanically/abstractly from your character - it is one of the main areas where players skill actually makes a difference and impacts the game's direction.

[Quellian-dyrae]

I'd also add, make use of, or work on developing, your knowledge of the game's mechanics. At the end of the day, real-world tactics may or may not actually be useful in a game. But most games provide a tactical framework to work within, and there are usually good and bad options, either generally or in certain situations. This framework is going to be much simpler to learn and use than actual military or psychological tactics. This isn't so much about optimizing your character, but optimizing the choices your character makes. Run the numbers, learn the probabilities. Know what your resources are and what benefits you get from expending them. And so on.

Investing in information-gathering capabilities is also a good idea. The more you know the smarter you can play.