Teamwork, Teamwork, TeamworkI've run enough 4e games and read enough blog posts to understand that 4e really rewards players that use teamwork. And by "rewards" I mean, "let's them live". In my brief stint as a player, I was struck by how profoundly difficult teamwork actually is. I've seen my players struggle with it, but now I think I have a better idea of why it happens. I think it comes down to:
1. Know Thyself
2. Know Thy Companions
3. Inertia of Maximizing Bonuses
4. Real-Time Pressure
Know Thyself: clearly if you don't know your own character well, much less the 4e game mechanics in general, then your ability to work in a team is limited. As a player, it is your job to know what you can do and to understand the rules well. Besides knowing your strengths, know your weaknesses. This seems to be a fairly frequent issue.
Know Thy Companions: there is tremendous synergy between classes. If you are playing a Star Pact Warlock and several of your powers will reduce a foe's Will defenses, then ideally the party should be in a position to exploit this. If you are playing a Tactical Warlord and you can give a +5 bonus to hit to an ally, do you know who has the best power to benefit from this? (hint: it's generally
not the character who does the greatest raw damage - look for someone with stunning, blinding, buffing, etc. powers, even if it does markedly less damage.)
This can be a bit weird for roleplayers - in previous versions of D&D I sometimes liked to keep my exact abilities and bonuses secret so as to not diminish roleplaying. Having everyone else in the party study my character sheet is a level of transparency that can be discomforting. Especially if I have a concept like a Changling pretending to be human, or a character who wants to keep his warlock pact a secret. Also, there's a tendency for people to focus on game effects over flavor, so when you start to describe your Dread Star invocation in vivid roleplaying terms, the GM is already writing down the game effects and another player handing you the damage dice. That kinda takes away from the immersiveness of an RPG and is a subtle shift towards tabletop wargames.
Inertia of Maximizing Bonuses: probably not the best label for this, but it's what I'm using to describe when a player takes an action that maximizes their potential damage output or potential effects, over doing something that is less impressive but is of greater tactical benefit to the party. There is a certain inertia to bonuses - "oh, if attack this guy I'll do an extra d8 damage, and if I move here I can get +2 to hit", etc... Things like targeting a quarried/cursed foe to maximize damage or targeting a certain foe just to get a better bonus to hit. It can also be a matter of moving into a bad/vulnerable position so as to make an attack, in the belief that making no attack is worse than being dangerously exposed. By maximizing bonuses, a party is quite capable of dealing a significantly greater amount of damage overall (at low levels, I'd say a solid 10 extra damage per round), however it tends to be divided among multiple foes or often the wrong foes. Dealing less but more strategic damage is better.
Real-Time Pressure: the last point is pretty obvious, players are reacting in real-time. Combat should be moving quickly, yet new information is coming at the players really fast, and they have to assimilate it and react to it immediately. And they have a ton of options to choose from. In addition, it’s hard to coordinate in the constraints of the 6-second round. Think of it this way, as a DM, I’ve usually had a chance to spend at least 15 minutes with a cup of coffee, casually reading an encounter description and examining the map and monster descriptions to come up with some tactics. The players tend to get all of a couple seconds between miniatures appearing on the table and the three magic words being uttered: “roll for init”. How spontaneously coordinated can they actually be?
So that's all coming from the player's perspective. What does that mean for the DM? You should encourage them to develop teamwork. Try to have your players create characters together and discuss synergies while making them. My group is using the infamous near TPK incident as an opportunity to build characters that play nicer together. Those who actually regularly read and reply to their email (all but *ahem* two of them. You know who you are.) are going to really benefit from this.
You should also encourage your players to dissect what went right and what went wrong. Many players will do this on their own, but not always. I like to make sure we wrap up a game a bit before we absolutely need to, so that there's time to sit around and chew the fat about the game. I focus on getting feedback on the adventure, but it's also an opportunity for the players to make tactical critiques. And rewarding a player who takes the time to post game summaries and suggest tactical revisions is a great idea (if anyone if my group is reading this, volunteers are welcome).
I think you can also get players to better learn their powers by making it relevant in-game. Many years ago I played Robotech and one of the modules had a series of adventures that took place in a simulator. One of the adventures had the players getting shot at from a random weapon and direction and having to react accordingly. Something along the lines of:
GM: "Klaxons blare in your cockpit. Your radar picks up a missile streaking towards you from the very edge of your radar! What do you do?"
Player: "I, uh, take evasive action and fire a mini-missile at the launch site!"
GM: "What kind of missile?"
Player: "Uh, armor piercing? No, wait, Plasma!"
GM: "You dodge a direct hit from the enemy missile but its fragmentation warhead damages your mecha. Your missile falls far short of the target - your radar has five times the range of your missiles. Do you think it is funny to waste expensive munitions, Private!?!"
Player: "Aaaah! Sir, no Sir!"
It was hard as hell but you learned your mecha's weapon systems
really quickly. I think I still have all the sensor and weapon ranges of the Excalibur memorized to this day... Next time I start a new campaign with all new characters, I'll consider finding a way to integrate something like that into my D&D game. Whether it's a retired adventurer taking the PCs under his wings, or a War Mage Academy Illusory Combat training course, I like the idea of finding a way to get characters to quickly learn and choose from their powers in-game. A key part could be including hints in the combat descriptions to guide the players in their decisions - suggesting what a foe's lowest defense is, or giving them objectives like preventing enemy movement, for example.
The last thing that you as a DM can do is be fair when it comes to teamwork. When I DM, boy can I get some teamwork going! The poor players have to shout tactics to each other asynchronously in short 6-second bursts. I have telepathy baby! The Kobold Skirmisher wants the three Kobold Minions to surround the wizard PC, being sure to leave the lower right square open and occupying the upper left square to set up a flank for combat advantage? Oh, and after you get into position, delay your attacks until after the Skirmisher so that everyone gets combat advantage all around? Done and done, without so much as a word.
Yeah, look – it’s really easy to be clever as a DM, you can almost always be more clever than the players*. What’s hard is not being too clever. You need to look at the Int, Wis, and descriptions of the creatures you are playing and be sure to roleplay them accordingly. Kobolds don’t exactly have high Intelligence scores, but they are pretty darn cunning and fight as coordinated mobs so maybe it makes sense for them to work really well together. But you should try and impose some of the communication lags and coordination difficulties that PCs suffer from to be fair. In the game I just played in, the DM did a great job of having rats and their kin behave in combat like rats, not mini-rodent versions of Sun Tzu. Flanks against PCs only occurred because a player was truly mobbed, not because of wolf-pack maneuvering. Rats triggered OAs because they didn't know any better. Great job.
I try to do this too. In my last DMing session, the Kobold leader started shouting out commands. Namely, keep away from the big, armored guy with the sword, and attack the wizard (who had strayed a bit too close to the battle line). But there was a one turn delay before the Kobolds really started to act on it – I tried not to use my instantaneous one-brain telepathy and have them act with some kind of creepy hive mind. (Although, one of my players thought they were still too coordinated, which could be true.)
So there ya go. Those are my thoughts on how hard it is for players to use teamwork and what the DM can do about it. Technically, it's the players' problem not the DM's, but I genuinely believe that any thing the DM can do to make for a better game is worth looking at. Even if it means finding ways to cajole players to learn something as obvious as the rules and their companions and their own capabilities.
* “Almost always" be more clever is an important distinction. Odds are good that your players are clever bastards. The SOBs will regularly figure out your plots prematurely, hijack your story arcs in ways you never imagined, and ask to do ingenious things that aren’t even remotely covered by the rules. They will find ways to skewer your major villain while you are still describing his appearance. Players are remarkably, evilly, clever. They are not, however, consistently clever. Yes, in a 4-hour gaming session, it is practically guaranteed that at least one of your five players will have an idea that is stunning in both cleverness and malevolence. But that’s different from being clever every single round of every combat – the DM definitely has the edge there, simply because he is generally better prepared and is hopefully capable of coordinating tactics with, um, himself.