Yuku free message boards

Hey Antisoul,

I've never had a bad game of D&D because someone uses "bad tactics". Or because my players do something "stupid" (they have been some of the best games actually...). If they want to play a heroic character, I'd let them since it's obviously the type of game they want to play.

Regarding their tactics, I'm guessing since you're fighting wolves, it's in an open area, so there are no corridors or places to put your back up against, except maybe a tree. If Mr Commando is playing a fighter and he runs into the pack of wolves (and that's his character's personality), that's what he's supposed to do. In an open area it's a lot smarter for the fighter to charge ahead than to sit back and have the wolves decide they want a taste of wizard, rogue or bard instead. Now that's bad tactics.

Also if the wolves are taking out the fighter, maybe you made the encounter too difficult. In an open area, fights are pretty cut and dry. Flanking is not going to make a lot of difference and honestly he would be somewhat flanked anyway (or if everyone is back-to-back they would get equally attacked, which could be good or bad).

Anyway, back to my point. You have to decide what kind of game you want to run: an epic heroic adventure (where the heroes charge in sometimes) or whether you want to play a game of chess. Right now you're opting for chess and there is nothing wrong with it, it's just a different game style than some people like, this commando guy is looking for some escapism, and you're not giving it to him.

Personally... for my group, I've found that miniatures and counting squares has almost ruined D&D for us. In regards to trying new things in my games, putting emphasis on this in most combat encounters was probably the biggest mistake I made. If people wanted to play a tactics game they'd play a computer game. I'm trying to take us away from miniatures and counting squares. Yes, we still use graph paper and yes, sometimes the players have to rely on my sense of fair play, but it runs faster, and is more exciting imo. And it's less work for me.

Also don't take this the wrong way, but it also sounds like maybe you don't like the player and want to punish him. Ultimately, you have to decide who you game with and tell people what kind of game you want and see if they're compatible. It's a cooperative game, you're there to make your players happy and have fun but you also have to have fun too. Anyway, I'm sure you will figure it out.

In the meantime... I just want to say that I love this thread title, it makes me laugh every time I see it.

I don't think the DM should kill them (unless they are being extremely stupid), I say "let them have fun", let them charge in and be heroic if that's what they want to do, without killing them.

Playing a more heroic game is just another style of playing D&D. If you had a gaming group that preferred not to min-max their characters, you wouldn't kill them for making that choice would you? Should this gaming group be killed because they are non-optimal? I think you'd agree that you'd accommodate their style if you like playing with them, nerf encounters down so that they could handle them. To handle more heroic campaigns, you can do the same thing in different ways.

If the player has an ego and is playing an egotistical or conceited character, does it really matter? No. It's escapism, they want to play a hero. I've had some players at my table who played conceited characters who were a bit over-the-top and quite frankly, it's fun. You give him a little of what he wants and then trash him at times (not kill him), it's actually hilarious because his pride matters so much.

Regarding control of the game, it's ridiculous to think that any player could even think he could control the game anyway, who has players like that? Who could be so dumb? I've never found any player who believes this. Besides, it's mutual control of the game, it's not the DMs game and it's not the player's game.

I'm not at his table so I can't tell if this player is being completely stupid and kamikazee or whether the DM just interprets it that way. In my experience, this sort of thing is open to interpretation. One person's heroic is another person's stupidity.

I've had DMs that expect all players to be just as conservative as they are, in all actions, but that's just not the way some people want to play. And they punish their players for it. I've also had some players drag even the most simple games out to be long bore fests (let's go already!), just because they are so conservative. In the end, you have to make a game that makes both your players happy and also keeps you happy.

Of course we're making assumptions and there can be other explanations. We don't know Antisoul, we don't know Dr Commando, and we're not even at his table. We're just brainstorming and dicking around, this is the internets . Normally I'd say a "training grounds" would be a good idea, but Commando was described as "a smart player who knows the rules". If he's smart and knows the rules and knows tactics already, training grounds aren't going to help him any, it sounds like he just wants play more heroically. That's what it seems like to me anyway, with my 3rd party information.

Anyway, it's up the DM to figure out the problem and ultimately, what he wants to do and what kind of game he wants to run.

Peace out.