D&D and The Art of War

[Boren]

"And so ones victories are without error, being without error what one arranges is necessarily victorious scene one is victorious over the defeated. Therefore the victorious military is first victorious and after that dose battle; the defeated military first dose battle and after that seeks victory."
Sun Tzu "The Art of War"

This passage has shaped much how I play the game of D&D. I take a lot from other areas of the text but this one has probably had the most affect on my playing because the games I am in tend to be heavily combat focused. If you have read The Art of War you know how much it talks about knowing your enemy and preparing the grounds. However this mindset has been causing some problems for me and the rest of the players at the table. Our DM has started to penalize the party for good planing ex: the party knows the bad guys are coming and we know who and what they are already, we prepare spells that will be particularly effective and set an ambush for them. But instead of our work and preparation paying off he simply ups there saving throws, ACs, and hit points until he feels 'they had a chance to be a challenge'. Same thing for any effective or creative use of a spell or ability. All the players are getting tired of this and all attempts to talk the issue out have only resulted in him getting angry and if pressed too much he ends the debate with 'I'm the DM deal with it'. Long story short are we off the mark here? Are we expecting too much/little of something here? And if not anyone got any good ideas and how to get the talking going so we don't end up breaking the group? I really don't want that to happen but that is where this is gonna go if it doesn't get resolved.

[derfenrirwolv]

Well, the dm can throw more challanging encounters at you if he feels like, however they should come wth increases in xp and loot.

[The Rabbler]

I have a question about your campaign: When you make plans for encounters, regardless of whether or not the DM ups the difficulty, how well do you guys do?

If your planning would turn a challenge into a cakewalk, the encounter might warrant some tuning up.

[Aroka]

Switch DMs. Negating player cleverness and agency is one of the worst DM traits.

[Boren]

1. No the increase in challenge comes with no corresponding increase in EXP or loot.
2. When we just blunder into a random encounter we do about as well as the CR says we should do probably averaging on the better side of that. We're not a bunch of power gamers here. I'm mostly talking about having done in game work to be ready and properly prepared for what we are getting into and (at least feeling like) that's all being nullified on a whim.

[Vitruviansquid]

IMO, the problem is really that you and the DM have different conceptions of what DnD is and how it's "meant to be played."

From what you describe, it sounds like what you would probably think of as "player stupidity," the DM might think of "player heroism" and what the DM might think of as "epic storytelling," you would think of as "unrealistic" or outright "cheating."

Now, if that seems to adequately describe your situation, one solution would be that you and the DM split up and each play with different groups that can provide what you want out of the game. Since that's exactly what you don't want, maybe you could switch systems. Maybe a player could DM a separate campaign, where your favorite tactics are awarded rather than punished, and your group would play each DM's campaign alternately. You could also switch systems. I heard Shadowrun is great for the type of gameplay you enjoy while, at the same time, it's in keeping with the setting so your DM could enjoy his narrative.

[Mnemnosyne]

Well the obvious problem is that instead of being smart in return, the DM is countering by making NPC numbers bigger. That's not fair and it makes things boring because it just makes your abilities work less effectively, instead of presenting a situation you have to overcome. Even more significantly, there's no increase in exp. If the DM is going to throw such challenges at you, he has to increase the exp and loot or he's basically cheating. If he wants to increase the challenge without increasing the exp, he needs to use the NPC's he's got more effectively, not pump their numbers.

The DM is doing it poorly, and needs to learn how to properly challenge the characters without essentially cheating by pumping numbers but giving no increase in rewards. If he refuses to listen, I would say you should find another DM, because he's either incapable of or unwilling to attempt to properly challenge a group of players who behave intelligently with planning and foresight.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

How does your DM justify making those changes? Was your PCs' information wrong? Did the NPCs know there was a trap and try to work round it? Or is he just trying to kill you?

When my players find out who they're going to be facing and get good intelligence on their opponents' capabilities and weaknesses, and plan accordingly, I let them deal out the massacre that they worked for.

Later, maybe (if the massacred NPCs had any allies) I'll bring in a tougher force to revenge the dead. But player smarts and planning should not be negated, unless you have an in character reason to do so.

[Psyx]

"Therefore the victorious military is first victorious and after that dose [sic] battle; the defeated military first dose battle and after that seeks victory."

Sitting around planning for hours can make a game dull to run, and be very boring for the GM. Not always, but Conan the Barbarian and most of the fantasy heroes didn't spend four hours discussing a plan, then resting for a night to mem the correct spells. I once ran a game where it took the party five sessions of planning before a mission; and then plan literally went to pieces at the FIRST hurdle.

I can see why he wants to to be more adaptive.

And Sun Tsu has a good point, but he misses the caveat. Far too many wargamers and increasingly roleplayers rely on winning a battle before they sit down at the table with a 'winning' army list or character. That's frankly appalling strategy. Sun Tsu should have added 'thinking you've won before you started is foolish'. Or the more modern caveat of 'no plan survives contact with the enemy'.

Too many players get upset when their four hours of character generation falls apart with the unexpected. It's generally more fun to 'get what you're given' and have to think on your feet, and make what you have on hand at the time work, while under pressure. Why not try fighting more battles on the fly, and saving the serious planning for important events. And ask your GM stick with the stats he gave stuff before the game. Because otherwise you face a very artificial battle, where you don't employ your knock-out blows early as you know that they'll be hand-waved into uselessness.

[potatocubed]

Here's a suggestion: why not have the GM start by throwing overlevelled enemies at you? Like, pick bad guys that are +3 or +4 CR.

That way, instead of you facing a vaguely dangerous (i.e. CR-appropriate) encounter and using superior tactics to mow through it, you end up facing really dangerous encounters that you have to use superior tactics to defeat, or die.

It's pretty much what's happening right now, but it's usually more satisfying for everyone if the challenge is front-loaded rather than being handwaved in later on.

[hewhosaysfish]

Ask the GM if he would reduce the difficulty of encounters if you approached them in a stupid way. Combat the next enemy by throwing your shoes at it. See how he reacts.

[WinWin]

"And so ones victories are without error, being without error what one arranges is necessarily victorious scene one is victorious over the defeated. Therefore the victorious military is first victorious and after that dose battle; the defeated military first dose battle and after that seeks victory."
Sun Tzu "The Art of War"


"Win. Then fight."
Sun Tze Bing Fa

Informed choices are better choices. Being uninformed or unprepared can lead to disaster. Making an effort to avoid disaster is not disruptive.

I have had players play the game in a similar way. As a DM I has to allow for the majoirity of combat encounters being over in a round or 2.

I was able to keep the game exiting by being very precise with the information I gave PC's. Sometimes they made assumptions or mistakes. Sometimes they did not make allowences for the versatility of the opposition. Sometimes the opposition utilised the same martial philosophy...

Keeping the game from devolving into rocket tag was the difficult part. Overall, I would say I was successful. The players had fun in any case.

[Boren]

Ask the GM if he would reduce the difficulty of encounters if you approached them in a stupid way. Combat the next enemy by throwing your shoes at it. See how he reacts.

Actually now that you mention something we have a player that's been almost doing such. I thought he was just being tired and uninterested at points but now that you bring this up he may have been trying to do just what you said. It doesn't help much but maybe if we all did it...?


Here's a suggestion: why not have the GM start by throwing overlevelled enemies at you? Like, pick bad guys that are +3 or +4 CR.

That way, instead of you facing a vaguely dangerous (i.e. CR-appropriate) encounter and using superior tactics to mow through it, you end up facing really dangerous encounters that you have to use superior tactics to defeat, or die.

It's pretty much what's happening right now, but it's usually more satisfying for everyone if the challenge is front-loaded rather than being handwaved in later on.

Problem I see with that is that if we get hit with that on some random encounter we are gonna get TPKed because we're not over powered to flatten everything in our path just that when we have good info we don't just bull into the fight we plan accordingly and use what we have to our best advantage.

[Kylarra]

Actually now that you mention something we have a player that's been almost doing such. I thought he was just being tired and uninterested at points but now that you bring this up he may have been trying to do just what you said. It doesn't help much but maybe if we all did it...?
No, that's just childish. If talking it out results in nothing productive happening, then it's time to change DMs.

[Boren]

No, that's just childish. If talking it out results in nothing productive happening, then it's time to change DMs.

Well I don't mean for that to be a permanent thing but if we all just picked one encounter and in some silly way 'refused' to fight it it might get the point across. Kinda an actions speak louder then words thing, because words haven't worked.

[Psyx]

"Actually now that you mention something we have a player that's been almost doing such. I thought he was just being tired and uninterested at points but now that you bring this up he may have been trying to do just what you said. It doesn't help much but maybe if we all did it...?"

There's a lot to be said for not playing to your full strength in games. That way, when the GM throws down a tough encounter, gauged to your observed capabilities, you can pull out the 'spare' firepower that you've been sitting on.

[Xefas]

Well I don't mean for that to be a permanent thing but if we all just picked one encounter and in some silly way 'refused' to fight it it might get the point across. Kinda an actions speak louder then words thing, because words haven't worked.

If words haven't worked, then actions aren't going to either. Actions do speak louder than words, but if words have solicited a negative response, actions are just going to solicit a stronger negative response.

Normally, I would say that this is just a difference in playstyles, but the DM seems to actively be limiting player agency, one of the absolute worst things you can do as a DM. Agency, the ability to make meaningful choices within the construct of the game, is one of the major, and possibly the greatest draw to playing a tabletop RPG.

If you've already told him in no uncertain terms, in a calm and mature manner, that the majority of people at the table are not having fun, and he is not willing to adapt, either through stubborness or merely because playing a different way would not be fun for him (which is valid, I guess), then you should, in my opinion, stop playing with him.

[Person_Man]

Is your DM frustrated with your party thinking strategically and creatively, or is he frustrated that your party over uses magical divination and/or pre-buffing?

If it's the former, then there's really nothing you can do other then not playing, or changing DMs, or enjoying the simplicity of his games for what they are. I don't begrudge Tetris for not being Romance of the Three Kingdoms. So if you're playing a Tetris D&D game, either have fun with it or switch to something else.

If it's the latter, then he has a point. As a DM, it's difficult and frustrating to spend hours (or days, or weeks) coming up with binders full of NPCs, encounters, and plot trees, just to have your PCs wreck it in 5 minutes with creative use of divination and polymorph. That's not really a roleplaying experience, that's using your mastery of the rules to destroy the story. You can play strategically without using Tier 1-2 magic to bypass or roll over encounters and plot points.

Now, an experienced DM who knows that his PCs are going to pull magical shenanigans can still provide an interesting game. But it generally requires that your antagonist be ridiculously powerful and/or foresighted in their planning (because if they're not, the creative magic using PCs will bulldoze over them), and it requires that the DM be able to "think on your feet" rather quickly (because the PCs are likely to wreck any plot trees you write out).

That's not something you can argue a person into. It's a skill they have to learn on their own. And it takes years or decades to do so, if they ever develop it at all.

[Boren]

There's a lot to be said for not playing to your full strength in games. That way, when the GM throws down a tough encounter, gauged to your observed capabilities, you can pull out the 'spare' firepower that you've been sitting on.

Yes your vary right however just one small problem...I've already been doing that. Now as someone who DMs as well I can fully understand being frustrated with a PC that has a 'game breaking' power or ability for example one of my games I'm playing a bard/mind-bender/sublime cord and if i were to play at 'full power' I wound simply be steamrolling every encounter with armies of mind controlled enemies; however as an experienced player I recognize that this would make for a lousy game for everyone else so...I don't do it I keep one or two 'pets' around but I try vary hard to never let this get out of hand or out shine the other PCs with my hoards. Also when a player gets a 'game breaker' if your the DM the long and the short of it is you let them get it. The buck stops with you if you let Pun-Pun out of his hole and and flatten your game. If things are getting out of hand I personally use in game tactics to resolve it after all if powerful PCs can prepare against there enemies an enemy that know the PCs are messing with there plan can prepare against the PCs too. The Art of War is a two way street.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

"Win. Then fight."
Sun Tze Bing Fa

Informed choices are better choices. Being uninformed or unprepared can lead to disaster. Making an effort to avoid disaster is not disruptive.

I have had players play the game in a similar way. As a DM I has to allow for the majoirity of combat encounters being over in a round or 2.

I was able to keep the game exiting by being very precise with the information I gave PC's. Sometimes they made assumptions or mistakes. Sometimes they did not make allowences for the versatility of the opposition. Sometimes the opposition utilised the same martial philosophy...

Keeping the game from devolving into rocket tag was the difficult part. Overall, I would say I was successful. The players had fun in any case.
Right here. Planning can occur, yet that doesn't mean that it becomes a 100% successful thing. There can be errors in information and such, and errors in preparation, things going on that they can't foresee.

The best solution for this DM, I'd say, is to make you work to get that information. Make you work for it, and make you expend time. Time that you can ill afford to lose. That's how he can add tension. You're working against a clock, and you don't always have the time to spend planning and putting plans into action. That's why you can go into a fight not always knowing what you're up against.

Plus, is there any reason why the bad guys wouldn't be planning for your characters, once you distinguish yourselves?

[Vangor]

Our DM has started to penalize the party for good planing ex: the party knows the bad guys are coming and we know who and what they are already, we prepare spells that will be particularly effective and set an ambush for them.

How do you know who and what they are, and can you provide an example of preparing spells which are particularly effective? This may change my response significantly.

However, 'I'm the DM deal with it' should not be a response to problems for the players themselves. Yes, DMs are ultimately the arbiters of their own world, but this means nothing in the real world where people are or are not having fun and are able to choose whether to stay or leave. Now, there is something to be said for wanting to provide a challenge or have interesting combat. Simply upping health, armor, saves, etc., while more difficult, is not more challenging in my opinion.

[Yukitsu]

It doesn't matter if he's right or not. If all of you are getting tired of it, then he is, for your group, wrong. If as you said, the players are not content with his choices, you should vote with your feet. One of you other folks can DM here. It's not as though he's the only one with a copy of the DMG.

This is one of the few things that I've walked out of games for, and generally everyone else would follow. We still play as a group, we have other people who enjoy DMing, and we get over it. But it's not worth suffering through something that isn't fun.

[Pechvarry]

I feel like it's worth pointing out (sorry if someone else already did and I missed it) that this is exactly what happens with optimized parties, as well. If your group changes over from blasting wizards and healbot clerics to batmans and codzillas, your DM steps up the fight accordingly. Is this punishing you for getting better at playing your characters?

I can't give any good answer to this. Just worth keeping in mind that it's still the DM's job to challenge the party.

[Thorcrest]

I'm curious as to how you know EXACTLY so much about this encounter, enough to know that while you fight the stats have been raised higher than they should be. As a DM I Never let the Players look at the stats for my monsters, especially bosses, and if they figure something out about him, say with scouting, it would be: He carries a Great Sword and appears to be wearing Chainmail. If they get really good scores, I might give them a bit more description which might give a clue to more specifics, for instance if they are enchanted, but never should you get exact stats... it just ruins the fight.

Now if the DM admits he's doing this as punishment for you learning this information and planning accordingly, then he is being a bit of a jerk.

[Vitruviansquid]

Well here's another thing. The DM is kind of like a stage magician. He wants to make a good plot and exciting encounters, but since he doesn't have control over what the PC's do, he has to use a lot of tricks behind the screen to make everything work out for the best. When he places a plot point in the east, and the players decide to go west, he'll just discreetly relocate the plot point to the west, and in the end, it'll be the presentation that counted.

This is largely the same for building encounters (to most DM's I've met). Under the assumption that a challenging encounter will keep players most excited, and that DM's improvise things behind the screen to tailor the campaign to the players' actions, why *not* let him modify enemies' stats on the fly to make encounters more even?

Do you *really* want to play out encounters where you fight 2 level-appropriate enemies, since your trap took care of the rest? Does it really even make sense to set up your positioning grid at that point?

Then do you really want a campaign where the grid isn't ever taken out because the PC's beat every challenge ahead of time? That doesn't sound like it would be fun at all.

[Boren]

I'm curious as to how you know EXACTLY so much about this encounter, enough to know that while you fight the stats have been raised higher than they should be. As a DM I Never let the Players look at the stats for my monsters, especially bosses, and if they figure something out about him, say with scouting, it would be: He carries a Great Sword and appears to be wearing Chainmail. If they get really good scores, I might give them a bit more description which might give a clue to more specifics, for instance if they are enchanted, but never should you get exact stats... it just ruins the fight.

Now if the DM admits he's doing this as punishment for you learning this information and planning accordingly, then he is being a bit of a jerk.

No we don't know things such as exact stats ex: AC, weapons, equipment ahead of time normally. I'll give you the most resent example: Savage Tide we are in the section where we defend Farshore vs the Crimson fleet in addition to doing the prep missions I use scrying to get some general info on the approaching fleet I also have a lyre of building as a bard and I tell the towns people to just gather supplies and I'll do all the ruff work building with the lyre including a shore line wall to keep the pirates out. We hit level 12 I pick up polymorph do some research as to good choices and after a little wait the fun starts. He ignores the wall we built telling us not one told him (despite the fact that I did a re-worked map print out showing the new defenses) when the party goes to make our sweep of the attacking ships that when I spring the polymorph trick transforming the pally into a war troll and myself into an wyvern with our much improved stats we begin the assault on the five ships as we start the attack the DMs comment is 'I don't care I'll just up all there stats'.
Now I could go into a lot more detail I just don't want to type up the entire night but hopefully that will give you some better idea of the issue.

[Human Paragon 3]

Here's a suggestion: why not have the GM start by throwing overlevelled enemies at you? Like, pick bad guys that are +3 or +4 CR.

That way, instead of you facing a vaguely dangerous (i.e. CR-appropriate) encounter and using superior tactics to mow through it, you end up facing really dangerous encounters that you have to use superior tactics to defeat, or die.


Came here to suggest exactly that!

[Vitruviansquid]

No we don't know things such as exact stats ex: AC, weapons, equipment ahead of time normally. I'll give you the most resent example: Savage Tide we are in the section where we defend Farshore vs the Crimson fleet in addition to doing the prep missions I use scrying to get some general info on the approaching fleet I also have a lyre of building as a bard and I tell the towns people to just gather supplies and I'll do all the ruff work building with the lyre including a shore line wall to keep the pirates out. We hit level 12 I pick up polymorph do some research as to good choices and after a little wait the fun starts. He ignores the wall we built telling us not one told him (despite the fact that I did a re-worked map print out showing the new defenses) when the party goes to make our sweep of the attacking ships that when I spring the polymorph trick transforming the pally into a war troll and myself into an wyvern with our much improved stats we begin the assault on the five ships as we start the attack the DMs comment is 'I don't care I'll just up all there stats'.
Now I could go into a lot more detail I just don't want to type up the entire night but hopefully that will give you some better idea of the issue.

Well, if the DM says that, he's just being surly. On the other hand, your party seems to be very tough to DM for in the first place, since you're using so many ridiculously powerful ways to circumvent anything fun the DM had planned.

Might I suggest switching to a system with a more rigorous concept of balance, like 4e? It still feels like DnD, but it seems to me like the players can play at full power more while the DM gets less headaches since "full power" is less likely to break things.

[Tinydwarfman]

Here's a tip: In most games, and especially pre-made modules where the DM isn't tailoring encounters to your abilities, Don't use effing Polymorph! Or anything really broken for that matter. I mean, he doesn't sound like a great DM, but Polymorph is one of the single most broken spells in the game. There's no special tactics going into it, you can use it every encounter, so I don't even know where the Art of War is coming in. And really, what other choice does the DM have when you use it? Do you want every encounter to be a cake-walk, or do you want a challenge? Him ignoring the wall was really bad, and he shouldn't have told you he was upping the monster stats (I mean, who does that?), but I think you could stand to tone it down a bit. There are plenty of other spells in the sea. :smallwink:

[Umael]

He ignores the wall we built telling us not one told him (despite the fact that I did a re-worked map print out showing the new defenses)

*snip*

when I spring the polymorph trick transforming the pally into a war troll and myself into an wyvern with our much improved stats we begin the assault on the five ships as we start the attack the DMs comment is 'I don't care I'll just up all there stats'.

It sounds like your DM thinks it is "the PCs-vs-the DM" or even "the players versus the DM".

It isn't.

It's a game. Both the players AND the DM should be enjoying themselves. If all your work is being ignored and all your plans countered by crude DM fiat, then the DM's not being fair.

In other words, your D&D game is a cheat. Why play it?

(I also wonder if you quoted him accurately. Did he actually say, "I don't care, I'll just up all their stats?" Because if he did, he is a piss-poor DM.)


Also:

You are level 12, right? Party of 4, shall we say? Handle CR 12 monsters with ease, or easily enough?

If I was the BBEG and I noticed that my CR 12 task force was being wiped out, I would send something stronger, maybe CR 15, to go see what is going on. Or do a little divinity myself.

I mean, if there is a BBEG out there, why should he be stupid? Your DM should be learning from you and using some of your same tricks back on you.

Do yourself a favor - look up SilverClawShift's archives. THERE is a DM who knows how to be nasty while still playing fair AND being incredibly entertaining.

[Eorran]

There's one thing that sticks out in this situtation:

It's easier to be a skilled player than a skilled DM.

Now, I'm not saying the DM wasn't wrong. It does seem like a jerk move to nullify player preparation. However, remember that the DM has a lot of work to do. You have the time to figure out exactly what works best for your player, maximize his strengths and minimize his weaknesses, partly because your PC stays around a lot longer than the monsters.

One of my frustrations as a DM in 3.X was trying to optimize monsters' tactics while still tracking the whole battle, and without insta-killing a PC or cheating on rolls or stats. I'd often find tactics the monster should have used - after the battle, too late.

Some DMs do this well. Yours may not. I'd recommend asking if his "up all their stats" was just his way of dealing with PC power creep. If so, the solution may be switching DMs, or perhaps simply toning down your abilities.

By 12th level, the line between "cakewalk" and TPK gets very fine indeed.

[Boren]

Here's a tip: In most games, and especially pre-made modules where the DM isn't tailoring encounters to your abilities, Don't use effing Polymorph! Or anything really broken for that matter. I mean, he doesn't sound like a great DM, but Polymorph is one of the single most broken spells in the game. There's no special tactics going into it, you can use it every encounter, so I don't even know where the Art of War is coming in. And really, what other choice does the DM have when you use it? Do you want every encounter to be a cake-walk, or do you want a challenge? Him ignoring the wall was really bad, and he shouldn't have told you he was upping the monster stats (I mean, who does that?), but I think you could stand to tone it down a bit. There are plenty of other spells in the sea. :smallwink:

The thing is we had talked a while ago when the subject of polymorph having been banned from some 'official' games we decided as a group (with him holding this position as well) not to remove it from our games. If we hadn't done that I might agree to your point but in light of that I must say that I'm not going to let one of the best spells just sit and rot.


Might I suggest switching to a system with a more rigorous concept of balance, like 4e? It still feels like DnD, but it seems to me like the players can play at full power more while the DM gets less headaches since "full power" is less likely to break things.

If I wanted to play World of Warcraft I'd just play that ;p

And yes those were his exact words to us

[Tinydwarfman]

The thing is we had talked a while ago when the subject of polymorph having been banned from some 'official' games we decided as a group (with him holding this position as well) not to remove it from our games. If we hadn't done that I might agree to your point but in light of that I must say that I'm not going to let one of the best spells just sit and rot.


Then you're either going to have a piss-easy game with no challenge, or you're going to have to live your DM arbitrarily upping the stats of your enemies. If you are absolutely intent on optimizing to the max with pre-made modules, there aren't really any other good options without a really great DM.

[Mnemnosyne]

There's one thing that sticks out in this situtation:

It's easier to be a skilled player than a skilled DM.

Now, I'm not saying the DM wasn't wrong. It does seem like a jerk move to nullify player preparation. However, remember that the DM has a lot of work to do. You have the time to figure out exactly what works best for your player, maximize his strengths and minimize his weaknesses, partly because your PC stays around a lot longer than the monsters.

One of my frustrations as a DM in 3.X was trying to optimize monsters' tactics while still tracking the whole battle, and without insta-killing a PC or cheating on rolls or stats. I'd often find tactics the monster should have used - after the battle, too late.

Some DMs do this well. Yours may not. I'd recommend asking if his "up all their stats" was just his way of dealing with PC power creep. If so, the solution may be switching DMs, or perhaps simply toning down your abilities.

By 12th level, the line between "cakewalk" and TPK gets very fine indeed.
The major problem with this DM in my opinion is that he's not giving them appropriate rewards when he increases the challenge unfairly. If he ups an enemy's stats, that enemy should give more exp, but he's not doing that.

The DM also has other options, such as 'higher level reinforcements show up in 1d4 rounds' if the players are suddenly shredding his encounter. Unless the situation is one in which higher level reinforcements could not possibly show up, this is entirely fair and reasonable. Note of course, that when (if) defeated, these reinforcements should give appropriate exp.

Beyond the obvious problem of completely ignoring their wall (frankly I would not continue the session if the DM simply ignored a major action my character took in preparation for a battle, I would refuse to play unless my character's actions are fully taken into account) the DM doesn't appear to be adapting his NPC's to intelligent tactics and strategy, either. If this group's opponents include spellcasters (which they clearly should) then he needs to step up and start using powerful tactics with these enemy spellcasters. Throw a few tier 1 classes that play powerfully and intelligently at the group and have just as much preparation for the battle. If he improves their tactics and use of ability, he doesn't have to increase the CR to increase the challenge, and then it is fair to the players as well as being challenging, and it's fun because they're actually going against opponents that follow the rules and thus can be countered with intelligence rather than with hitting them more.

After all, without planning and intelligent tactics, D&D combat is really quite boring. It is quite frankly dull to play a party that doesn't get clever with how they deal with their opponents, and a DM trying to force them to do just that is simply trying to force combat into being a slog through a bunch of rounds where all the player does is roll dice and attack.

[potatocubed]

Problem I see with that is that if we get hit with that on some random encounter we are gonna get TPKed because we're not over powered to flatten everything in our path just that when we have good info we don't just bull into the fight we plan accordingly and use what we have to our best advantage.

Well, the idea is that it's only the serious encounters that are overlevelled. If you're taking on the Army of Blarg, the Army of Blarg will consist entirely of elite wizards or something, to give you a bit of a challenge - the random wyvern (or other CR-appropriate monster) who attacks you while you're scouting is just a wyvern.

To be honest though, it sounds like the problem you have is a GM who just isn't as good at tactics as you are. I've been there, and it's a sucky position to be in. He also sounds like he's kind of new at this GMing thing, which doesn't help; it's pretty tricky to learn the craft when the players run right over everything you do, and until you learn the players are going to keep right on running.

The simplest advice I can give is to grit his teeth and learn some tactics. He doesn't need to become the next Sun Tzu, just learn ways of efficiently using the abilities the creatures already have. The easiest beginner's method for this is to steal from the PCs - take the tricks they're using, add or change a couple of things, then fling them right back in the characters' faces. See what works and what doesn't, take some notes, and refine the plan from there.

[Boren]

Well, the idea is that it's only the serious encounters that are overlevelled. If you're taking on the Army of Blarg, the Army of Blarg will consist entirely of elite wizards or something, to give you a bit of a challenge - the random wyvern (or other CR-appropriate monster) who attacks you while you're scouting is just a wyvern.

To be honest though, it sounds like the problem you have is a GM who just isn't as good at tactics as you are. I've been there, and it's a sucky position to be in. He also sounds like he's kind of new at this GMing thing, which doesn't help; it's pretty tricky to learn the craft when the players run right over everything you do, and until you learn the players are going to keep right on running.

The simplest advice I can give is to grit his teeth and learn some tactics. He doesn't need to become the next Sun Tzu, just learn ways of efficiently using the abilities the creatures already have. The easiest beginner's method for this is to steal from the PCs - take the tricks they're using, add or change a couple of things, then fling them right back in the characters' faces. See what works and what doesn't, take some notes, and refine the plan from there.

Sadly he's been DMing scene 1984 he's is or rather was vary imaginative and creative with his adventures he's seen a lot and use to make good use of that. He really just seems to have lost his spark of late and resorted to lazy DMing to cover it. I don't know why or what I've known him for years and nothing I know of happened or anything. Like I said he just seems to have lost the touch. :smallfrown:

[potatocubed]

Perhaps he needs a break?

[Boren]

Perhaps he needs a break?

I've thought of that at the moment we rotate DMs with 3 different games going so he only runs every 3rd week. So far it hasn't helped but perhaps it will in the long run.

[Ormur]

That example you gave sounds pretty bad. Ignoring good planning, like battlefield control is just mean, can't the army just bring siege engines or ladders instead. Upping encounter CR might not be such a bad thing when you find out it's to easy but then do it quietly and giver more XP or introduce reinforcements. If it was like you told it he just seemed to do it out of spite.

It's also fine to ask players to tone down cheesy stuff like polymorph or place some limits on it but it should be a gentleman's agreement or a healthy discussion.

[Boren]

That example you gave sounds pretty bad. Ignoring good planning, like battlefield control is just mean, can't the army just bring siege engines or ladders instead. Upping encounter CR might not be such a bad thing when you find out it's to easy but then do it quietly and giver more XP or introduce reinforcements. If it was like you told it he just seemed to do it out of spite.

It's also fine to ask players to tone down cheesy stuff like polymorph or place some limits on it but it should be a gentleman's agreement or a healthy discussion.

I agree 110% sad thing is the HAD catapults on there ships and if he had given like 3-5 rounds then said they knocked a hole in the wall and were getting through that would have been fine and completely realistic. After all the wall was only wood.

[Fouredged Sword]

I would just let my players have the extra exp and loot and keep up with the power creep myself.

On another note, you said that your party is doing normal on encounters that you can't prepare for. That suggests that your build is not overpowered, just flexable. I would suggest three things.

First let the party fight powerful things they have time to prep for. They have skill as players so let them show off.

Throw the unexpected at them. Nothing throws a wrench in a plan like a drunken clogdancer who stumbles into the fine opera of thier plan.

Let then have to prepare for several things at once. If they can prepare for one threat, then make them have to guess which of three or four threats they will face. They will be forced to choose more generaly useful spells over win buttons for particular moments.

[Pechvarry]

Then you're either going to have a piss-easy game with no challenge, or you're going to have to live your DM arbitrarily upping the stats of your enemies. If you are absolutely intent on optimizing to the max with pre-made modules, there aren't really any other good options without a really great DM.

I think this bears repeating. Particularly the last section. You don't actually have a bad DM. But you're demanding a LOT from him. He probably could come up with satisfactory ways of handling your scenarios if you guys were fine with him hitting PAUSE on the campaign for 15 minutes at a time as he flips through books and puts together stuff appropriate to the situation. You just really can't complain about him using Rule 0 when you're using Tier 1.

[Hawriel]

He is not abusing you, he is not forcing you to do any thing. He is not putting you in a box with only his way out.

The DM is not wrong. He does not have to justify every little thing he does. The DM is the master not the players. If a NPC is stronger than you think it should be then well you should not have assumed.

NPCs can do research to. Its not like players are ever sublte. If your group act like swinging **** big damn heros then it's not going to be hard for the opponet NPCs to plan for you. Even if your characters are not lead by your ego your becoming a contending force in your society. The bad guys are going to know just as much about you as that inn keeper who gives you free drinks.

Players really dont understand this but you dont have a 'right' to win. If it's not a challange than whats the point. Sure you can get to totaly own somthing every now then. However if you expect it to be the norm then maybe you should do somthing els.

Your accusing the DM of being antagonistic when you (the OP) open the post with quoting zun zhu. Your inharently an antagonistic player. I dont see your 'play style' as your character vs NPC opponets. I see you as me vc the DM.

This doesnt meen the DM doesnt have to learn his role better. He is most likly needs to addapt his encounters or to better understand why the NPCs would react the way he is making them react.