| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No I'm not talking about yet another new management fad.
I'm curious, how many of you play in groups that actually build and function as a team instead of a loosely allied collection of possibly incompatible individuals?
I don't know if it is a regional thing or just coincidence, but most of the groups and players I've met recently just do not do that. Game day starts and we have:
4 melee builds and PC's are struggling to get up to the enemy to strike
3 PC's with knowledge religion and no one with knowledge dungeoneering (or we have diplomacy and not sense motive)
Several blaster casters and not a buff, debuff, or condition removal among them
Martials charge to the enemy even though it leaves the squishies vulnerable
Martial immediately charges, then complains he didn't get hasted or got enveloped in the fireball
Anti-social misfit PC that refuses to cooperate or follow directions seem common
Etc...
Before I moved; most of the groups/players, most of the time, approached things as a team. Not everyone and not all the time, but often enough that it was noticeable.
We'd discuss things as a group. We'd ensure that the necessary functions were covered OR have a plan in place to deal with not having it (maybe 1/4 wealth set aside to purchase condition removal scrolls/potions).
Both in combat as well as social encounters, everyone usually had a role to fulfill and knew about it ahead of time.
PC's would delay, ready, flank, aid, provide cover, guard, etc... whatever helped the group as a whole. Not just "What is best for me right this moment."
We often had 'standardized' basic battle plans that could be called out during a fight without alerting the enemy. Much like football or basketball plays. If my wizard called out Red-H-2, the martials knew to not get close to the enemy leader for 2 rounds or they would also suffer bad things. If the martial call a Green-H-0, we knew that meant he was immediately charging the leader, so someone else might need to protect the squishies (and they would do it!). The rest could buff the person that made the call, debuff the leader if it won't affect the caller, or deal with mooks.
I tried this again with current group. All but one of them came to the build/planning session with already 90% of their 1-15 build set in stone.
It was like pulling wisdom teeth to get everyone to agree to one teamwork feat at level 3 (no idea if I can get them to make collective use of it in play).
No one was planning to cover any knowledge skills, 1 guy has enough charisma to probably cover party face if he puts ranks into diplomacy (probably won't be too good and any other face skills), finally talked another guy into some ranks and a trait into sense motive, almost all of them are melee martial characters (again, since they assumed the others would do something different this time), etc...
I don't know. Sometimes it is just kinda frustrating. Don't get me wrong, sometimes the campaign set up is just a random collection of individuals is thrown together and has to find a way to succeed. Then it makes sense and might even be kinda fun learning to deal with what you don't have. But even then there is that 'find a way to succeed' phrase. Hey guys, we might need to actually make and carry through on some plans ahead of time.
But some of them are not like that. Some noble chooses a group to go do X. Really, he chooses this group? He must be an idiot.
Completely meta-gaming. Some of them are complaining about how we can never manage X, how are we supposed to Y, it's do dangerous to play Z since too squishy, how was I supposed to know you were gonna do that, etc...
Hey, I've given you the solution umpteen times now.
[/rant] Ok, I'm done complaining for at least a little while. It's probably really not as bad as I portrayed the situation. But sometimes it bugs me more than others.
Any suggestions on convincing people to at least try a bit more teamwork?
and then there is
|
Frankly - when it comes to teamwork feats - I don't think much of most of them unless you have a class which lets your allies count as having it. What they do just doesn't seem to be worth it considering they basically cost two feats, and are situational.
As to the rest - other than PFS (where I like my bard specifically because he can fill in the gaps), the groups I've played in have generally tried to be reasonably well balanced. We might not fit all of the four classic roles to not have any gaps, but we can get close enough that the group doesn't suffer.
Frankly - when we're getting a campaign together, I'll usually bring 2-4 character ideas which I've had on the backburner and try to figure out which one meshes best with the rest of the group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly - when it comes to teamwork feats - I don't think much of most of them unless you have a class which lets your allies count as having it. What they do just doesn't seem to be worth it considering they basically cost two feats, and are situational.
As to the rest - other than PFS (where I like my bard specifically because he can fill in the gaps), the groups I've played in have generally tried to be reasonably well balanced. We might not fit all of the four classic roles to not have any gaps, but we can get close enough that the group doesn't suffer.
Frankly - when we're getting a campaign together, I'll usually bring 2-4 character ideas which I've had on the backburner and try to figure out which one meshes best with the rest of the group.
I'm mostly not talking about the teamwork feats.* You can function as a team without taking any teamwork feats. I just haven't seen much of that recently.
Yes, PFS where you don't know who will sit at the table or what they will do in a situation is quite a bit different. I get that. But you can still guard the squishies, help setup flanking for the sneak attack, not charge before the buffs or area effects spells, etc...
* Though I think the teamwork feats are better than most people give them credit for being. Just as a quick example.
Outflank is one of the most basic. It gives you an additional +2 when flanking. My friend is making a melee summoner the eidolon will have 3 different attack types. he is irritated that he has to take weapon focus 3 times to get all of them a +1. He will be taking weapon focus on his long spear. He will be trying to set up flanking whenever possible anyway so he has a better chance to hit with is spear. My character will almost always be in melee with his eidolon. I will probably take weapon focus with my great axe. That is 5 total feats for a +1 to hit on every attack all the time. Instead we could all take Outflank. That is 3 total feats for a +2 to hit on every attack most of the time. We usually manage to get flanking set up on tough opponents that last longer than a round. If it wasn't a tough opponent to last more than a round we didn't really need a bonus to hit anyway.
By any math, if the party members cooperate and work together the teamwork feats are usually worth quite a bit more than many of the comparable 'common' feats that people take all the time.
In most of the groups I've played in there has been a limited amount of coordinating characters. At the very least we try to make sure we have a balance of capabilities -- not all the same exact character type.
I'm in one Pathfinder group now that is attempting to push this a bit further. We did some coordination as far as what classes each took and then each created our characters. This resulted in a lot of skill overlap. The most recent time we leveled, we tried to make sure at least one person in the group had some ranks in each knowledge skill.
We still have a lot of overlap in skills, but as we advance I think it will get better. A little overlap is nice, but at the start we had all but one character with ranks in Survival skill while we had three or four knowledge skills with no one having any ranks in them.
Teamwork feats would be a hard sell. They do not help you get through any of the feat trees and most characters especially at low levels want to get their feat prerequisites.
|
|
Teamwork feats would be a hard sell. They do not help you get through any of the feat trees and most characters especially at low levels want to get their feat prerequisites.
Yes - some combat styles really require several feats to start to come into their own, whether the standard rogue melee build (weapon finesse & TWF), archery (point blank/precise/rapid shot), or in an extreme case, throwing weapon builds (needing all 5 previously mentioned plus quick draw). Though of course, that, plus the way magic items work in Pathfinder is why really throwing builds are a somewhat sub-par choice. (playable - but certainly not top tier)
|
While my group usually builds mechanically compatible characters and fills necessary roles, from a character-story POV they usually look more like a rag-tag band of misfits, at least at the beginning.
Take Guardians of the Galaxy as a pop-culture example. They have a fairly diverse skill set with decent tactical synergy that I'd describe in PF terms as a bard (Quill/Starlord), ninja (Gamora), druid (Groot), alchemist (Rocket), and fighter or barbarian (Drax). But it takes them almost an entire movie to get over various personality conflicts.
In-combat tactical synergy varies from game to game and exact set of players involved (some of whom are more tactically inclined than others).
Teamwork feats are more likely to be useful for a pair of PCs than an entire party. Precise Strike and Outflank for example are great for melee characters, but ranged characters and casters will find them useless most of the time. The feats that everyone will find useful (like Lookout or Swap Spaces) aren't useful enough to justify spending the feat.
Before I moved; most of the groups/players, most of the time, approached things as a team. Not everyone and not all the time, but often enough that it was noticeable.
I'm curious what your region was/is.
I've gamed in Oklahoma my whole life, and my groups have run the gamut between the stereotypical man children to my current pcs who are almost off-puttingly tight and coordinated.Also, what's the average age of your group? do they lean younger than your previous ?
The group I game with always tries to cover all of the bases as far as roles and skills, with alot of team play and coverage.
As far as Teamwork Feats, I did take precise Strike and Outflank with my Ranger who had the ability to fire without provoking, so i'd flank with the Rogue and fire away. Seemed to work really well.
I'm one of two guys in my group that has a tendency to play skill monkey types. And we always try to cover our bases with a healer a melee a skilled and an arcane, sometimes I do double duty by running multiclass sorceror cleric, didn't get past second level but goddamn did I just instantly jump to our powerhouse thanks to the flame domain Really need to run a sage archetype sorceror cleric mystic theurge
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My groups run the gamut from 'why would we plan our group in advance?' to a thorough review of The Forge of Combat to ensure a balanced group before finalizing our PCs.
Not surprisingly, the group that uses the former approach has about 30% attrition per session, routinely TPKs, and seems to seek out and enjoy failure. This group mostly plays things like Warhammer RPG and Call of Cthulhu, where TPK is par for the course.
The group that uses the latter approach is far more successful in meeting challenges, but misses out on a bit on the 'joie de vivre' of roleplaying. This group mostly plays Pathfinder.
The other thing I see is that out-of-balance parties generally correct themselves. Once some PCs die because 'no one thought to play anyone with healing ability', one of the new PCs can usually heal.
Teamwork feats would be a hard sell. They do not help you get through any of the feat trees and most characters especially at low levels want to get their feat prerequisites.Yes - some combat styles really require several feats to start to come into their own, whether the standard rogue melee build (weapon finesse & TWF), archery (point blank/precise/rapid shot), or in an extreme case, throwing weapon builds (needing all 5 previously mentioned plus quick draw). ...
Granted, I am not saying teamwork feats are always the best option. But they often are. Not everyone is always taking a high feat requirement chain. In fact in our group they are pretty rare.
Previous campaign: 3 PC's took Iron Will because they were really often getting hit with high DC will saves, so a +2 on will saves seemed worth it. Fairly reasonable. Except all 3 of those characters are almost always standing next to each other and shake it off would have given them a +2 on all of their saves most of the time.
But since what everyone else is doing is no part of their consideration of what they will do, it wasn't really an option.
.
.
Before I moved; most of the groups/players, most of the time, approached things as a team. Not everyone and not all the time, but often enough that it was noticeable.
I'm curious what your region was/is.
I've gamed in Oklahoma my whole life, and my groups have run the gamut between the stereotypical man children to my current pcs who are almost off-puttingly tight and coordinated.
Also, what's the average age of your group? do they lean younger than your previous ?
Used to be about an hour north of Detroit MI. Now in south western Ohio.
Current primary group is late 20's to mid 40's, ave ~33. Secondary group (meets only occasionally when the stars align) probably averages about 30, maybe slightly less. The groups I've seen here might be slightly younger on average that what I knew in MI. But not much.
Not as much variation though. I think the 3 groups I knew in MI were all in their 30's with one guy at 42.
.
.
While my group usually builds mechanically compatible characters and fills necessary roles, from a character-story POV they usually look more like a rag-tag band of misfits, at least at the beginning.
Take Guardians of the Galaxy as a pop-culture example. They have a fairly diverse skill set with decent tactical synergy that I'd describe in PF terms as a bard (Quill/Starlord), ninja (Gamora), druid (Groot), alchemist (Rocket), and fighter or barbarian (Drax). But it takes them almost an entire movie to get over various personality conflicts. ...
Don't get me wrong. Sometimes something like that is the setup and it can be fun.
But sometimes it isn't. The current group I GM is trying to Roll Play like they are a well oiled combat machine. But they're closer to an old pedal sewing machine that has been sitting in the attic gathering dust and rust for a generation.This is 3rd campaign for this group and it is up to level 9-11 and they are just now starting to try and coordinate their actions a little bit.
{{ I would have put Quill as a rogue that wishes he was a bard, Gamora as maybe a monk, Groot as a barbarian, Rocket as a gunslinger (he makes bombs but spends most of the movie shooting), and Drax as a fighter. }}
... In-combat tactical synergy varies from game to game and exact set of players involved (some of whom are more tactically inclined than others). ...
I don't expect everyone to be tactical geniuses. But most of these groups don't even seem to try very much.
... Teamwork feats are more likely to be useful for a pair of PCs than an entire party. Precise Strike and Outflank for example are great for melee characters, but ranged characters and casters will find them useless most of the time. The feats that everyone will find useful (like Lookout or Swap Spaces) aren't useful enough to justify spending the feat.
I understand what you are saying. But the group that brought 4 melee characters? What if they had all taken Outflank and Precise Strike? How difficult do you think it would be to usually set up a flanking position with 3 other melee buddies? I think it would be pretty damn easy?
I think Lookout would be great for a group. There is almost always at least 1 character that makes the perception roll so can act in the surprise round. It is vey common for many characters to take Improved Initiative. So once it is past the surprise round they have a bit better chance of acting soon.
But they are giving up a full set of actions to the enemy first. And since they are a very non-sneaky, clanks loudly, predictably stomping around kind of group; they get ambushed all the time.
Swap Spaces I agree is not nearly as commonly useful. But even then 1 of the 2 groups could make great use of it. One of the newest players actually made a tank-ish PC, specifically to protect the squishies he said.
If he had stayed guarding the squshies and they had swap places, he might have been able to mitigate most of the threat from the latest Mantis Assassin attack. Would certainly have been much more useful than the toughness feat that 2 of them have and the 3rd is considering. Those sneak attacks were doing a heck of a lot more than 10 points of damage.
But he doesn't have the feat and doesn't stay in place to protect the squishies. He immediately charged off toward the first threat observed, leaving the squishies unguarded. So the squishies had to spend the first few actions casting defensive spells, getting grappled, and suffering sneak attacks.
|
|
I wonder if it's easier to get a group to start using teamwork feats if they have an inquisitor? Solo tactics lets the inquisitor take a feat without the painful waiting time until he has a partner. Then, other PCs can take the same feat knowing they have at least one partner.
---
Anyway, teamwork feats are only a small aspect of actual teamwork. Most of the time I play with random PFS groups so we're not really good at working together. It's at its worst on low tier, because you get some inexperienced people, some people with pregens and often very cramped dungeons with everyone playing a 2H melee striker. At least we've got a decent amount of wand discipline. It's very easy to get Dutchmen to understand why everyone should pay for their own healing :P
At higher tiers it's better. People are already familiar with PF, and familiar with typical PFS challenges. Groups are usually formed in advance on Warhorn so there's a chance of a balanced group. If someone does use a pregen they tend to choose them based on what the group is weak in rather than based on what would appeal to a first-time player.
But a while back I had the distinct pleasure of playing in a mini-con where we played four games over three days, with a more or less constant group. Also nicely, the four scenarios (5-99, 6-01, 6-03 and 6-02) came to us in ascending order of difficulty. So by game three we were pretty well tuned to each other and by four we were an efficient machine. We still had a lot of melee strikers, but then you kinda need them in "robot scenarios", and we didn't get in each others' way.
My groups run the gamut from 'why would we plan our group in advance?' to a thorough review of The Forge of Combat to ensure a balanced group before finalizing our PCs.
Not surprisingly, the group that uses the former approach has about 30% attrition per session, routinely TPKs, and seems to seek out and enjoy failure. This group mostly plays things like Warhammer RPG and Call of Cthulhu, where TPK is par for the course. ...
I guess it wouldn't irritate me so much if they were ok with or enjoyed their epic failures/close calls. They often seem genuinely upset about how difficult of a time they are having with what should be only moderately challenging encounters.
... The other thing I see is that out-of-balance parties generally correct themselves. Once some PCs die because 'no one thought to play anyone with healing ability', one of the new PCs can usually heal.
I would agree with that to a certain extent. If they have no one with any condition removal spells on his spell list, I would guess each new character that comes in has about a 50% chance to have those spells on his list. Most other roles they will muddle along and try to do without. They once played about 1/3 of a campaign with no melee character and constantly getting mauled by up close enemies.
Good teamwork can be as simple as figuring out how to work together to fight around a 5ft doorway, rather than allowing enemies to use the bottleneck against the party.
Absolutely!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious, how many of you play in groups that actually build and function as a team instead of a loosely allied collection of possibly incompatible individuals?
My first couple groups fit the latter definition. Everyone just kind of did whatever they were going to and if fate allowed, it might come together.
My more recent groups have been much more cohesive, with the players taking the time to plan out their characters together, look for synergies between their intended characters, etc.
Though I think the teamwork feats are better than most people give them credit for being.
Absolutely. Teamwork feats are hands down the most powerful feats in the game, providing solid benefits, promoting inter-party cooperation and growth, and acting as some of the best force multipliers and action economy boosters available outside of limited spellcasting. It does certainly help if you're playing a class that can self-activate them, share them, or comes with a built in partner to trigger them though. My current favorite character is a Slayer with the Vanguard archetype who's been assembling a thieve's guild and uses his Tactician ability to turn his gang of cutthroats into a highly coordinated unit of killers and stealth experts.
As an example of how even seemingly sucky teamwork feats can actually be really good, I built a Bard/Cavalier/Battle Herald who could use Ensemble with his Tactician ability, convert the bonus to Perform into a bonus to Diplomacy with Versatile Performance and have an additional +8 (I wanted to say +10 for some reason... I think other players had abilities that boosted the bonus they gave when aiding another) on all of his diplomancy rolls. Basically turning his party of adventurers into one of those old Scooby Doo / Josie and the Pussy Cats era groups that somehow manages to solve every issue with a rock song. So not only was it effective, it was kind of hilarious and promoted great roleplay.
|
|
You look at some of the hunter/companion teamwork feat options, and some of those can get awfully nice.
Heck yeah, they sure can. The Hunter makes Teamwork Feats look good in a way that not even the Cavalier and Inquisitor managed.
Ssalarn, i agree with you. I actually really enjoy the teamwork feats. In an example I've shown before, I was in a group where I played an Archer Ranger and there was a Rogue in the party. My Ranger was the only character in the group that could possibly provide flanking without being splattered, so I decided to take Point Blank master, and myself and the Rogue took Outflank and Precise Strike, and it worked very well. Like you've shown, I think there are several excellent Teamwork Feats out there, some just take a little ingenuity for optimal use.
|
|
I agree that teamwork feats can be excellent. However they are more likely to be useful for pairs of characters - like flank buddies - or parties where someone has the tactician ability or solo tactics. For example, I played a trip monk with vicious stomp and ki throw together with an Inquisitor with paired opportunist. I'd trip something, triggering mad AoO, and drop them into a prone flanked position. It was glorious. But it wouldn't have worked as well if I'd had to take Paired Opportunist, since tripping took a lot of feats and the inquisitor rarely if ever created AoO for me. And it's easier to synergize a pair of characters to do something like this than to get the entire party on the same page.
There are also pro-teamwork feats and builds that don't actually involve teamwork feats. Aside from obvious group buffs, I've played both an inquisitor and a cavalier with Bodyguard builds, and one of my current players has got a fighter who makes good use of Stand Still to protect the party caster.
I think Lookout would be great for a group. There is almost always at least 1 character that makes the perception roll so can act in the surprise round. It is vey common for many characters to take Improved Initiative. So once it is past the surprise round they have a bit better chance of acting soon.
But they are giving up a full set of actions to the enemy first. And since they are a very non-sneaky, clanks loudly, predictably stomping around kind of group; they get ambushed all the time.
The problem with Lookout is you can only use an adjacent ally as a lookout. So for optimal effect, you need to march in a tight cube. This is not always possible (many dungeons have 5ft-wide corridors) and when it is possible it's more likely that your squishies will be vulnerable to attack, or your entire formation will get caught in an area effect. It might still be useful if you're constantly getting ambushed, but my group is only occasionally ambushed (maybe once every 3 to 5 sessions).
If he had stayed guarding the squshies and they had swap places, he might have been able to mitigate most of the threat from the latest Mantis Assassin attack. Would certainly have been much more useful than the toughness feat that 2 of them have and the 3rd is considering. Those sneak attacks were doing a heck of a lot more than 10 points of damage.
But he doesn't have the feat and doesn't stay in place to protect the squishies. He immediately charged off toward the first threat observed, leaving the squishies unguarded. So the squishies had to spend the first few actions casting defensive spells, getting grappled, and suffering sneak attacks.
It sounds like the fact that he's leaving squishes alone is a much bigger problem than the fact that he doesn't have a situationally useful feat. Have you talked to them about how they are having trouble solely due to a lack of basic tactics? Maybe summarize this post for them? Alternatively, build an NPC party with good tactical synergy (with or without teamwork feats) and demonstrate how effective they are. If your party is struggling as much as you say, it shouldn't be hard to give them a really rough time with a lower-levelled group, which might make them rethink their tactics.
... Have you talked to them about how they are having trouble solely due to a lack of basic tactics? Maybe summarize this post for them? Alternatively, build an NPC party with good tactical synergy (with or without teamwork feats) and demonstrate how effective they are. If your party is struggling as much as you say, it shouldn't be hard to give them a really rough time with a lower-levelled group, which might make them rethink their tactics.
Yup. Several times. Little to no effect. Just hear a "this is what my character would do" so not going to change.
And yes, when I'm GM I've had a couple instances where a group at APL-2 gave them severe difficulties. As far as I can tell, they learned absolutely nothing.
|
|
Have they considered making a character that would do something more effective?
Have they considered coming up with reasons why their existing characters might want to do something more effective?
Even the most selfish and independent characters I've played still see the value in teamwork. My CN bard didn't give a fig for the ranger until we hit mid-levels but the first thing she did with her Craft Wondrous Item feat was make him a Belt of Dexterity at cost because he was the guy keeping her alive. Even at higher levels their relationship was pretty self-interested on both sides.
If they're really determined to forsake self-preservation then I think all you can do is find another group or accept it, and maybe scale down challenges more or give them better gear or stats so that their raw power overcomes their lack of tactics. But seriously, APL-2? That's hardly worth rolling for initiative for at my table.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing that can foster the ol' "spirit of cooperation" is to not spare them from their own mistakes. Sometimes players don't learn to play as a team because they have this safety net of the GM always coming in with deus ex machina to save them or snatch them from an otherwise grizzly fate. Maybe don't. I'm not saying you should TPK them until they know better, but if a band of hobgoblins they should have been able to deal with beats them senseless and then sells them into slavery, it might help them explore new tactics for conflict resolution. Or make for a really gritty campaign where the story is more about a group of hapless rubes who bounce from disaster to disaster, spending as much time in prison, gladiatorial death matches, and chain gangs as they do exploring out on the open road. It's kind of a win/win.
Yes, they have built characters that are getting more effective on an individual basis and they're characters do change their plans based on what they individually feel is needed. Meaning they sometimes all do the same thing.
They are not selfish but are independent. They will share out wealth and give magic items to whoever seems to want it. But build and tactics are completely individual.
I won't leave the group. I mostly accept it, but it is sometimes aggravating.
Last session they were kinda irritated that the 2 combats took the most of the gaming session. They just couldn't seem to finish them off. But they were all over the map. One was trying to take a prisoner. One was trying to scare them away. They were letting the least powerful cohort face the leader by himself while they were charging all over to take out the mooks. Didn't guard the squishies so they got grappled a couple of times.
The one fight went so long that I had to go back and start figuring if the short duration buffs were still active.
They have pretty decent gear, so I'm not beefing up that. But I have been trying to scale back the challenges.
|
|
Have you tried teaching by example? Like, have the enemy use the kind of tactics you wish they'd figure out?
It sounds a little like maybe you have, but I thought I'd ask.
Also, maybe the length of the fights feels right to them and they don't see any problem with the way things are going. There could just be a gap in your expectations.
It sounds a little like your group is still fairly immature (not trying to be offensive when I say that) and the game is currently more about just exploring the current options they have and doing a little "flexing" to see who can build the biggest badass. It sounds like it's all pretty good-natured and they don't have issues with party loot sharing or anything like that, they may just need a year or two to assimilate enough of the material that they shift from exploring new mechanics in character building and exploring the more meta mechanics of teamwork and tactics.
Yes, I've had cooperative tactical teams against them. They seem shocked almost every time that they other side did something clever.
They seemed to be dismayed by how tough the fights were. No, I can't always be sure what someone's internal feelings are if they won't say it. But that was the impression I got.
Group member ship has been pretty stable around the core members for almost 4 years.
Was thinking about it some more last night. I don't think they are still learning the game, I think it is that they had already learned the game in specific way before I ever met them.
Prior group stories, they almost never talk about the tactics opponents or allies used. They just talk about builds, numbers, and powers. I think they learned long ago to just charge straight in, because that's what everyone else did (allies and enemies). The other group GM almost never has his NPC's use any tactics other than trying to surround the party. I would bet every time he has tried something else, the published material gave him the tactics.
{shrug} I may be wrong, I'll try to ask a few questions about it next session.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
both in the game I gm and the game where I'm the player does teamwork have a tendency to blossom through play.
Characters are made as agroup, we often dedicate a session to it.
we all have a tendency to adjust our buils slightly after what everybody is playing, to ensure that SOMEBODY has healing/buffs/debuffs/dps/a cat/etc.
when it comes to tactics most other players are slow to learn and I let them take their time with it.
-When I'm a player I know that our gm abhors pcdeath and is more into "story", than "math", unless somebody does something obvously suicidal they're going to be fine. I give tips or suggestions here and there, but let the game progress naturally without my interference.
-When I'm the gm I'm less forgiving, but I often ask the group about their evaluation and opinions at the end of the game. one of the topics we discuss then is tactics and I let them know if they could improve or (more often) brag about moves or actions they have taken that changed the fight in their favor.
Ex
"If Wossename hadn't placed himself in that specific spot and started to trip those ghouls, you guys would have been swarmed."
"Did you notice how low you damage was when you did x? yeah, you were in a corner with no flanking buddies, that's what the acrobatics skill is for dude"
"Holy banana batman, taking cleave was a good choice for your character, heads were rolling left and right that fight, nice stuff!"
I also sometimes try to outright manipulate them into better builds or tactics by asking innocent questions:
"Yeah I know you have sucky AC(/Hp/something irrelevant for your character), but aren't you a dedicated archer? wouldn't Beef McStrongThug, the frontline tank/human wreckingball have more use for that item?"
"say how much damage do you do with your [chosen weapon]? uhum, and how much would that be if you had [feat or something else that improves it]? wow, that much? ... ok then ... "
both in the game I gm and the game where I'm the player does teamwork have a tendency to blossom through play.
Characters are made as agroup, we often dedicate a session to it.
we all have a tendency to adjust our buils slightly after what everybody is playing, to ensure that SOMEBODY has healing/buffs/debuffs/dps/a cat/etc.
Yes, our group usually does the same thing when we know we'll be starting a new campaign. We have a quick chat about what we'd like to play, and then hash it out from there. And you're right, the teamwork (at leats in my group as well) seems to come out during gameplay, tactically and build-wise.