In a game with grid-based tactics, does one player controlling the entire party make them better at tactics, or worse?For the past few years, whether in a "regular" campaign or in a playtest for an upcoming RPG, my preferred way to play and GM grid-based tactical RPGs is one-on-one, with one player controlling the entire party. Here is one example that spanned from May 2022 to June 2023:https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/91089566/#91131236I have frequently been told by other people that one player controlling the entire party is unfair, because it makes the party more tactically coordinated than the system expects. I have also often been told that one player controlling the party leads to poor tactics, because a single player is too mentally taxed to make sophisticated gameplay decisions. Which do you personally think to be the case?For what it is worth, some time ago, I was approached by one "level2janitor" to playtest their grid-based tactical RPG, Tactiquest. I was also approached by "Captain Minnette" to playtest their own team's grid-based tactical RPG, DC20. I asked each of them:>Would you say that your game is fine to play as a game wherein one player controls multiple PCs, or would you say that your system's combat encounters cannot withstand unilateral tactical coordination?Level2janitor responded thusly:>i think that kind of play would be outside the norm, but if you had one extremely tactical player controlling a whole team, you'd find a lot of balance issues that are still valuable feedback for meCaptain Minnette had a much more specific response:>Unilateral tactical consideration is a design goal of the game>More that it is supposed to support a "whole party agrees on what exactly everyone should do" scenario>Which is not precisely the same but is fairly close>If everyone powwows to decide what strategy to employ down to the last action point, that's a viable playstyle
One person is limited by their tactical skill.A group is more likely limited by their ability to communicate.I would expect the single player to do better most of the time. If the game is complex enough that they can't handle everything, it's surely too complex for most groups to talk about effectively. I doubt many games come at all close.
>>94810206
>>94810284Of course the chinkshit spammer is a redditor.
>>94810206Most games are so simple that everyone will find the optimal move with a given character by default. The only advantage of a single mastermind is that you never have anyone intentionally throwing or AFK, and that you can coordinate chargen
I learned that grid combat is very rarely approached with actual tactics in mind. At least in PCs case. 90% will choose to do their own thing and the only teamwork you'll see is players healing each other and sometimes dealing with statuses.Those parties (again, 90% of them), will eat shit the moment you make your chosen enemies think, flank or single out weak links in the party. Not to mention more advanced maneuvres.Single player will have an entirely different mindset. Because all the heroes are under his control, he will try to synergize them and risk unusual tactics just because he can. It's all about the risk assesment. If you have one character, you want to play safe so you can be useful later. If you have several at the same time, you will make sacrifices and risky maneuvers because at the end of the day, he won't feel bad for benching a guy.
I think its okay to admit that a single person does not have the inter character dynamics that make up the "average party". While it can help to smooth out and balance some of the design, a single player will never have the amount of spite, selfishness, and retarded jackassery that happens at your usual TTRPG meeting and will likely never have the same amount of miscommunications, trolling, laziness, or ego that multiple players bring to the table.
>>94810206It depend on the complexity of the game, and the autism of the player
>>94810206Is water wet or is it moist, OP?Asking this of course for the game, one with water in it.
