You're viewing a single thread.
I think about this, or a related problem, a lot.
You have a group of players
- the first player wants tactics and strategy. They're like "I'll run into the room and dodge to draw their attention. Then you can drop a wall of fire or something while I have their attention". Combat is a problem to be solved using the fewest resources and lowest risk.
- second player wants to cast fireball. He wants to do cool flashy things. He's not here for resource management or long term strategy.
- third player wants to pet the giant spiders, open a lemonade stand in the dungeon, and have some beach episodes
- fourth player's just here to hang out with friends
Each person in that list probably thinks the one above him is "playing to win".
Second guy thinks the first is trying too hard about tactics and strategy. Third thinks the second is trying too hard about combat and damage. The fourth thinks the third is spending too much time roleplaying.
It's fine if your group is all the same type. But when it's mixed, it's bad.
Mixed can be better. Rolling With Difficulty has a mixed group of players and it's awesome. Red is an expert on tropes and always knows exactly what the DM is trying to do. Sophia has dice blessed by the gods and always pushes the big red button. Noir has a habit of dropping impassioned monologues that completely change the trajectory of the story. And Wally has absolutely wild builds that let them go up against incredibly powerful enemies.
If the party were all like Red, there wouldn't be much momentum coming from the players. All Sophias, and nobody would actually understand what's going on. All Noirs, and you get the Star Wars prequels. All Wallys, and the party would always play it safe and be boring. But with a mix, everyone shines.
I accept that this can work sometimes. I'm just bitter about having players that don't know how the game works or are just bad at it.
My current group is better.
Had me until your last sentence.
It's always going to be mixed, to some degree. The challenge is making it work anyway.
In my opinion and experience, when it's mixed it's better. As long as you have a good group where you don't have any players that complain whenever someone plays in a way they don't like.
Maybe sometimes. But as player type 1 in that set I was routinely really annoyed at player 2 and 3. We didn't have a type 4, but I can imagine they might've gotten on my nerves too.
They also weren't happy with me. One player would often create exchanges like
- them: "I move around the corner and shoot the monster. The one that's 100' away, yep."
- them: "ok i'm done"
- me: "...aren't you going to move back?"
- them: "what?"
- me: "Move back around the corner"
- them: "what? I already moved"
- me: (You've been playing this game for like a year now..) "You get 30' of movement. You used 10'. You can move back around the corner."
- them: "Oh. But why?"
- me: "...so they don't shoot you back."
- them: "I don't understand."
- me: "Where you are standing now, you can see them and they can see you. So you can shoot each other. If you move back where you were, you can't see each other, and they can't shoot you on their turn."
- them: "I don't see what the big deal is"
The wizard would also just blow spell slots for any excuse, adventuring day be damned. I was kind of peeved the DM gave him a full recharge during the boss fight for "plot reasons".
In retrospect, the problem was me and it was good I left the group. They're probably having a lot of fun with their playstyle. Maybe one day I'll find a good group where everyone understands advanced concepts like "cover".
Make it roleplay. See, this is why I loved Fourth Edition's Warlord class.
"Haragrimm, you've exposed yourself! Scurry back before they return fire!"
Power gaming is fun if it's also roleplay.
This is an interesting idea but I think the other player would just be confused and annoyed, out of character.
Some people don't play the games for tactics. Don't have the head or interest for it. And that's fine. I just don't really want to be at that table if we're doing stuff that looks like tactical combat.
People who don't like tactics shouldn't play D&D. They should play fun and cool games like Monster of the Week or Blades in the Dark. D&D is a wargame first. Tactics are part of the fantasy for D&D, especially if you have a warlord in the party. Why didn't they put the warlord in 5E? It was an awesome class.
People who don’t like tactics shouldn’t play D&D. They should play fun and cool games like Monster of the Week or Blades in the Dark.
100%. D&D's main things are tactics and resource management.
But D&D is the mega popular brand that people know, and they often don't want to learn something else. Even if they don't actually know D&D's rules.
I personally like Fate a lot for a simpler ruleset that's actually flexible and generic. I've been running a Fate game for about 20 sessions and it's been fun, even though the players don't always remember to spend fate points for story details.
Whenever I get a brand new group of players, I teach them Dungeon World. I tell them it's like D&D, but easier. This prevents the transformation into a normie, because they will always know that other systems are easy and fun.