I love talking strategy and battle tactics as much as the next Pathfinder, but there comes a point when too much is too much. If you've ever heard the phrase "shut up and let me play my character," then you know what I'm talking about.
These games we play involve teamwork and tactics, but a little table talk goes a long way. How do you balance the two competing interests?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never really had much of a problem with that, particularly if combat hasn't started yet. If they're taking their time to set up a plan of attack so can my NPCs during that same time. In combat, I usually allow a bit of time (I don't keep track but likely around 30 seconds or so) for players to discuss their options, at which point I then simply ask the player whose turn it is what they want to do. If they still don't have a decision I tell them I'll put them on delay and they can jump in when they want to - If I'm using note cards for initiative I just hand them their card and tell them to hand it back when they want to act.
*edit* I suppose that doesn't really cover quarterbacking though. I still see it mostly as a non-issue until someone clearly is starting to get annoyed by it. If it's one particular player I will usually let them know that they need to be sure to worry about their own characters rather than others. I've done my fair share of overextending my "advice" when it wasn't needed and sometimes it turns out to be helpful and other times it's just an annoyance.
I often remind my players that this is a role-playing game, not a boardgame, and that if we spend time crowd-sourcing each PC's action, any excitement and pacing will be lost. So if they want to give each other advice, shout it in-character and quickly, as if there's a real battle going on around them. I make allowances for new players, of course, who might need more out-of-character guidance.
The biggest problem I've had with quarterbacking lately is at spell preparation time. Everyone wants to tell the party's cleric what spells to prep, leading to much research and debate and upwards of thirty minutes or more (real-time) spent on it. I've had to institute a house rule to set a maximum time limit (10 minutes real time), which I don't like to do, but it was getting a bit crazy. Classes with massive spell-lists can create that "analysis paralysis" problem.
Personally, having been guilty of quarter-backing in the past, I've learned to only offer advice when it is asked for. It is better that we ALL enjoy playing our characters rather than being 100% efficiency with our actions and plans. Since I play (most often) support oriented characters, I often take "requests" on what kinds of spells to focus on when I prep (though I mostly play spontaneous casters), not individual spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Play Neutral Evil, let everyone do their thing, bail when things go south.
The comic's kind of ironic because it's actually the opposite experience for me. I've definitely been responsible for this... but it's when the player in question clearly has no idea what they're doing and their turn is taking an eternity to roll around. Possibly less justifiable is when someone makes such a flagrantly bad call that will either almost certainly get them killed or, far worse, put another party member in danger that I feel I need to intervene with an "are you sure you want to do that?" before the action is executed.
Can't tell you how many times I've seen someone who just really wants to trip the boss when the next person in initiative is a ranged DPR character... Or when someone is just so determined to get into sneak attack position they're willing to get flanked on all sides and provoke multiple AOO's to do it.
I've only felt like I had to quarterback once and it was to prevent a TPK due to a player not knowing a damn thing about their spell list (they had the spell to prevent a TPK, but due to their ignorance, they chose to DO NOTHING while their eidolon full-attacked). Otherwise, I keep my mouth shut and let bad things happen. That isn't to be malicious, but IME a bad tactical call by a player usually gets an immediate in game consequence by the GM (Oh! You tumbled into flank to get a flank? WAM!).
The most I do (barring a request for help), is make suggestions/requests in character, as has been said above. What has also helped me is to move away from the idea that we need to "win" the game and that not every move has to be the most optimal to have a good adventure (that changes if you are playing a a deadly game, of course, but then you probably aren't playing characters as much as you are playing builds).
I've never run into quarterbacking during a game.
I've seen players, in character, shout out a quick 'hey flank with me', or 'cast that spell'.
I've seen players give simple suggestions. 'hey, five foot over and you'll get flanking', or just reasoning out things like AoO's and threatened spaces with each other.
For new players, I've seen more experienced players say 'there's a couple things you could do here'.
I've never seen 'Hey, do exactly this during your turn', unless it was planning out a surprise round with time to do so.
As a GM, I've had to step on players quarterbacking their fellows - mainly, I've had to get parents to ease off telling their younger (and admittedly inexperienced) kids what they should be doing. I let them remind their kids what their character can do, just not what they should do.
I had to deal with this at my table but I was fortunate that the player was aware that quarterbacking is annoying to other players, just often did it without realizing that he was being bothersome not helpful.
After establishing enough of a relationship so that we could communicate without it feeling like a personal attack I gave them this article to read.
We also called out the behavior specifically and when it happened. This required being on a more active look out but I was able to jump in a soon as he was telling another character who and what order to heal. Other useful messages were things like 'If you wanted to control the healing you should have played a healer' that helped highlight that this is a team game with everyone having their own role.
In the year we've been playing together they have become a pleasure to play with.
It's fine so long as it is appreciated by the other player - someone new to the game or jumping into a higher level PC they haven't played before may very well appreciate it. What I have most often seen is an experienced player helping out a new player until they learn their PC's abilities - and the only one annoyed in the GM.
Personally, having been guilty of quarter-backing in the past, I've learned to only offer advice when it is asked for.
This seems like the best policy. Do you ever find it's difficult to maintain in high pressure situations? When your PC's life is on the line, it can be awfully difficult to sit and watch.
I've been in that situation a few times myself, where just having players do their own thing endangered the party. In fact, one of those situations led to a TPK.
Was not quarterbacking the right thing to do in that case? I mean, technically, yes, it was the right thing to do. But biting one's tongue can also lead to wiping out the party, which impacts everyone at the table and isn't usually a good time...
|
|
Quarterbacking to an excessive degree (which I'm sometimes guilty off) is a problem, but I think the term is overused especially when playing with new players.
If a player has never played an inquisitor before and they're playing the level 7 pregen in PFS, is it quarterbacking to ask if they want to activate bane before attacking the final boss?
Is it quarterbacking to remind a new player that if they cast a spell in melee range without casting defensively, that they will get cracked in the mouth with AOO?
I think it's better to give advice to a new player or at the least remind them of possible options instead of staying silent while a newbie playing Ezren does nothing but shoot a crossbow.
I've been in that situation a few times myself, where just having players do their own thing endangered the party. In fact, one of those situations led to a TPK.Was not quarterbacking the right thing to do in that case? I mean, technically, yes, it was the right thing to do. But biting one's tongue can also lead to wiping out the party, which impacts everyone at the table and isn't usually a good time...
Even in a situation like that, there's a difference between saying, "Hey, I think we're in trouble here. We need to plan out way out of this and cooperate," and telling people exactly what they need to do. It's a difference of approaching things as equals at the table vs browbeating someone into doing what one player wants.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, having been guilty of quarter-backing in the past, I've learned to only offer advice when it is asked for.This seems like the best policy. Do you ever find it's difficult to maintain in high pressure situations? When your PC's life is on the line, it can be awfully difficult to sit and watch.
Eh? No, I don't find it difficult at all. Sure, there is always that temptation to remind someone of an ability that might be useful or suggest a different sort of action to take, but I have grown out of it as I've matured as a gamer. I am playing a game. We are not in a competition. I don't have to 'win'. I am there to enjoy the cooperative story that we are telling, and the moments of tension that we find, or create through less than optimal choices on our part (ie, bad choices), only serve to make those moment more intense.
But... Sure. No one likes to lose a character. I have my doubts about the choices other people make, but that is just because I'd have chosen differently. I have seen, so many times, players choose spells that I wouldnt have touched with a 10ft pole actually use them to great effect. I've learned to let myself enjoy the situation. A certain level of unexpectedness is rather thrilling. The game is just so dang exciting because I can't predict the actions of other people and exerting too much control simply ruins that for me, despite my inner desire to do just that. I am an optimizer at heart. I like to build within an existing framework and make everything function like a well oiled machine. And then I get bored with it. I'd have ended up my own worst enemy if I had not recognized that and forcefully steered myself to some personal growth.
There was another time when--I dunno, maybe I was quarterbacking--when we saw the enemy--a Goblin Alchemist and a few apprentices--I called for us to form a plan. The fighter, the Kensai and I, another fighter, would go in and attack. The Wizard would cast Sleep, and another character would make Range Attacks from the door. I did not order anyone to do anything: I asked them what they wanted to do and what they had to bring. So, the other Fighter and the Kensai decided not to go in, the other fighter wandered down the hall, actually. The Wizard decided to cast Charm Person instead of Sleep, which didn't work because it depended on Roleplaying, so my character was the only target for the Goblins' Alchemist Fire, and they all had Burn!Burn!Burn! Basically, those PFS players screwed me..
Doesn’t sound too quarterbacky to me. And I do empathize with being stuck with people who can’t stick to their own plans.
I don't have to 'win'. I am there to enjoy the cooperative story that we are telling
While I totally agree with you personally, I respect that some people play the game for different reasons.
I don't think that people who would be annoyed by suboptimal strategy should play with people who play - intentionally or unintentionally - suboptimally. It makes the game less fun for everyone.
If I found out that the other PCs would be annoyed that I ate unnecessary AoOs because I thought channel energy had a 20' radius instead of 30', I would either play a class I knew better, or put in more work to learn my character, or invented an excuse to leave the group.
The GM should make sure everyone is on the same page before the campaign begins. Nobody's going to have fun if one person is there to roleplay a flavorful but suboptimal build, one is there to maximize DPR, one is there to act out repressed sexual fantasies, one got dragged in kicking and screaming by a significant other because the group needed four PCs, and then the GM is mechanically dragging everyone through a premade adventure.
|
I used to try to tell people how to play their characters all the time, because they didn't seem to know what to do, and I wanted to be helpful and I know the game very well, but yeah, most people don't want that kind of help. People want to play and enjoy and if they feel like they're being ordered around then it ruins the fun.
The problem is that their bad decisions can easily harm the rest of the group. However I've come to the conclusion that for the sake of overall enjoyment of the hobby, it is much better to let people make their bad decisions and deal with the consequences.
My current solution isn't great, but it's the best I've found under the pathfinder rules. I simply make a character that is so powerful that I can solo the adventure when things go horribly wrong. Then I use weak abilities normally to be on par with the rest of the group and bust out the broken stuff when I need to save my skin. This, of course, has plenty of problems. In a recent game, we had a string of combats with multiple character deaths, I eventually resorted to my emergency tactics every time, with the end result being an upset GM because I trivialized the encounter. Even though the combat went 5 rounds and half the party bit it, the point being I could have trivialized the encounter from the beginning, but then that wouldn't have been fun either and so yeah, anyway, it's a terrible solution. The alternative is to make a normal character, die, and make new ones, but then I'm not invested into the game and that ruins my enjoyment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I totally agree with you personally, I respect that some people play the game for different reasons.
I don't think that people who would be annoyed by suboptimal strategy should play with people who play - intentionally or unintentionally - suboptimally. It makes the game less fun for everyone.
I really don't have much more to add to what I said previously, but I do understand your perspective on the matter. All I can say is that it is through mistakes and failure, and yes, even a tad bit of suffering disappointment (ie, not having the most fun), that we learn the best.
So, I let people fail. I let people struggle. I let my characters fail and struggle right along with them. I offer my advice when it is asked for and shrug it off when that advice is not taken. I am there for the story and the bonding that comes along with hanging out with friends.
I let people fail. I let people struggle. I let my characters fail and struggle right along with them. I offer my advice when it is asked for and shrug it off when that advice is not taken. I am there for the story and the bonding that comes along with hanging out with friends.
I do the exact same as you, as do the people I play with. It's fun and it doesn't hurt that we knew each other before we played Pathfinder together.
But if at some point if I wanted to play an "expert" campaign with a different group and got turned down, or only accepted on the condition that I got better at Pathfinder, I can respect that too.
But if at some point if I wanted to play an "expert" campaign with a different group and got turned down, or only accepted on the condition that I got better at Pathfinder, I can respect that too.
Certainly. Different tables, different rules. I don't expect anyone else to cater to my particular wishes anymore than I expect others to require me to do so. If someone wants me to join an expert game, well then, I will come and rock their world. I just need to know the boundaries I have to work with.
Maybe teams and teamwork just, isn't necessary anymore in PF1?
That depends entirely on how you play and how things are handled at your own game table.
If you are playing at a difficultly that the CR system means very little, and are hyper focused in combat (which is what I refer to as never taking a non-combat related feat), you are going to fairly good at surviving combat encounters, rendering teamwork far less necessary.
If you are playing at a difficulty that maintains the assumptions built into the CR system (allowing for the rare instances were CR isn't accurate), and your character isn't intensely focused on combat (but still more than adequate for the task), teamwork remains essential.
Now, I support and enjoy characters than can fill just about any role in combat (or outside of combat). They are my favorite niche. There is just a level of gameplay that I don't find particularly fun, and that is when the combats are ratcheted up to be deadly on average, rather than the expected 'uses up a 1/4 to a 1/3 of daily resources'. Outside of the occasional boss fight, those kinds of constant threats wears down my verisimilitude as to why my character would constantly risk his life, even knowing how crazy adventurers are.
So, yeah. The biggest disconnect is how people might be using the same rules but are playing vastly different games than one another.
|
|
My issue with teamwork and pf1:
Back the earlier days of dungeons and dragons, you made a party of fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue. The players argued over who got to play which for this game, and that was pretty much the extent of character planning, the differences from one wizard to the next were fairly minor ones. Everyone had a role to play and everyone had to work together because their characters were fairly specialized into what they could do. It was easy to talk ahead of time, decide who was playing what, and everyone show up with a character for the game that would work together as a team.
Fast forward to present day pathfinder. There are 40 different classes. That's not counting the unchained versions, or all the archetypes that can change the way a class plays in major ways. The game has also changed a lot, gone are all the early d&d enemies who were flat out immune to one class. So there's too many choices for players to pick who is doing what easily and having that balance is nice, but not crucial to this game. The end result is that everyone shows up to a new game with a self sufficient character because the rules allow them to be and they don't know what their team is going to be capable of. Also, due to the possible range of power of different character builds, the build became the strongest factor in combat success. Teamwork becomes pretty irrelevant when your attack bonus is 6 higher and damage is 4 times what the encounter was designed for.
The end result is that everyone shows up to a new game with a self sufficient character because the rules allow them to be and they don't know what their team is going to be capable of. Also, due to the possible range of power of different character builds, the build became the strongest factor in combat success. Teamwork becomes pretty irrelevant when your attack bonus is 6 higher and damage is 4 times what the encounter was designed for.
Indeed. PFS has its own kind of issues to deal with, just as any home table that doesn't take time to set up a game zero session to coordinate between the players and the GM. As I said before, how you play the game influences all these factors.