PDA

View Full Version : Should a DM play harder rather than smarter?



Talakeal
2013-08-31, 04:39 PM
As anyone who follows my threads knows, I have a long history of players who throw temper tantrums when anything goes wrong. However, I noticed that a common thread in 90% of my problem cases is that people are mad because I play the enemies intelligently. For example:

Having enemies use hit and run tactics.
Have the enemies use stealth and ambush the party.
Have enemies run away when the players buff up or fortify an area and then attack them later when they have lost the protection.
Have enemies use terrain to their advantages.
Have enemy monsters use spellcasting as buffs.
When the players bypass a monster on the way into the dungeon and have it either follow them deeper in or wait for them to come back out.
Enemies who call for help.
Villains who don't make every mistake on the evil overlord list.
Enemies who use social skills to lie to the players or convince neutral NPCs to help them.

All of these are considered "**** moves" by my players, people outside the game who I have talked to in real life, and some people on this forum, have told that it is "cheating" that I don't ALWAYS play my monsters as super smart. That if I have a tribe of orcs who will fight toe to toe against PCs, but run away and get help if they encounter a group of flying invisible PCs who they can't hurt I am punishing the players for creativity and lulling them into a state of complacency. That if the orcs are capable of running away and getting help they should do it immediately rather than risk a straight fight.

These people have told me that they would never play in a group where the DM was using such "unfair tactics".

Another time I remember I was running a game in the rec room at college, and there was another DM running his own game. The other DM was running an "over the top" game, where people would routinely have WBL of a character ten levels above them and fight enemies with equally high CR, and epic level monsters, NPCs, and magic items started showing up before the PCs were level ten.
The other guys game always had way more players than mine, and when I asked some of the people who played in both games why this was. They used this example, of two boss battles that happened at about the same time in both our games:

In the other DMs game he had the players fight a 12 headed pyro hydra with about half a dozen templates on it (not an exaggeration.) It had sky high stats and had a CR at least double the parties level. It stood in the middle of a giant open room, splitting its attacks evenly between everyone who was in range. It never moved or did anything besides standard attacks. The party beat it fairly easily and felt like huge bad asses for defeating something double their level.

Meanwhile in my game the party encountered an equal CR green dragon in a forest. It used its casting ability to buff itself and debuff the party before engaging, and then used its camouflage abilities to attack the weakest members of the party with hit and run tactics. It was nearly a TPK, although the party did manage to overcome it in the end. I was told The players got frustrated and said I made them feel like idiots.


So, in summary, should DMs turn off their brains when playing monsters? Is it cheating for a DM to only play as intelligently as the situation demands rather than playing all enemies with an equal level of competence?

Am I a huge jerk for running smart enemies? Are my players just idiots and whiners? Is the answer somewhere in between? Or are these simply two incompatible play styles and I need to find a likeminded group in the future?

Silva Stormrage
2013-08-31, 04:49 PM
Hm, I original had a long rant but I think I can sum up my opinion much more succinctly.

It depends on the players, some players enjoy tactics, some don't. As a player I would feel bored against the hydra boss, it clearly has no chance of actually killing anyone and thus there is no reward for defeating it.

Also as another point, the DM is supposed to have fun as well. As a DM I would feel incredibly bored if I had to only play stupid enemies. Hell I often awaken skeletons and zombies just because I don't want to go through the effort of playing mindless creatures :smalltongue:

Felhammer
2013-08-31, 04:57 PM
To some degree, you need to cater your game to your players' play styles.

Radar
2013-08-31, 04:59 PM
Or are these simply two incompatible play styles and I need to find a likeminded group in the future?
I would say, it's this. There are many players, that just want to go out and slay huge, scary monsters without getting into details and still feel like heroes. For others the victory counts, when it's properly earned. When hours spent on planing and preparation finaly pay off, or when the carefuly constructed group tactics saves the day.

The same thing goes for other aspects of a game: if it should be optimistic, or dark; if it should be straight up fight against a moustache-twirling evildoer, or rather a subtle intrigue with lots of scheming, secrets and delicate diplomacy.

In general, it's one of the things to talk about with the group before the campaign.

Winds
2013-08-31, 05:03 PM
Enemies should be at least somewhat intelligent, but them being consistently more intelligent than the players isn't much fun for you or them. (That said, your examples imply that your players are under the impression that a dungeon or campaign is just a collection of unrelated encounters...which would also not be much fun.)

Kalmageddon
2013-08-31, 05:12 PM
To some degree, you need to cater your game to your players' play styles.

That's it.
You shouldn't design encounters based around the idea of using the monster at its full potential, you should design them around the idea of challenging the PCs without making it frustrating or too easy for them
And in considering the PCs you need to consider the players as well, their playstile, what they would to do overcome a certain obstacle.

And you shouldn't be above giving an out-of-character hint every now and then, maybe hiding it behind the request of a Knowledge (whatever) check, so the player doesn't feel he's being railroaded but is happy to have invested all those ranks in a skill.
I introduced Knowledge (Tactics) in my D&D campaigns just for that.

Jay R
2013-08-31, 05:43 PM
These people have told me that they would never play in a group where the DM was using such "unfair tactics".

Great! Problem solved.


The other guys game always had way more players than mine, ...

If the other DM gives out free fifty dollar bills, he will have more players than you. If the other DM hands out free chocolate, he will have more players than you. And yes, if the other DM hands out more free magic and wealth, he will have more players than you.

Bribery works. Is this news?


Meanwhile in my game the party encountered an equal CR green dragon in a forest. It used its casting ability to buff itself and debuff the party before engaging, and then used its camouflage abilities to attack the weakest members of the party with hit and run tactics. It was nearly a TPK, although the party did manage to overcome it in the end. I was told The players got frustrated and said I made them feel like idiots.

Do they use the same kinds of tactics? Do they ever flee, re-group, plan ambushes, take advantage of terrain, etc.? You could very easily be playing a game that they can't or won't play, and of course it will make them feel like idiots to face tactics they can't or won't counter.

If a chess grandmaster plays a new player using all his abilities, he's not cheating, but he's not playing a fun game for the other person, either.


So, in summary, should DMs turn off their brains when playing monsters?

Even when playing stupid monsters, I can't turn off my brain. I'm the referee. Role-playing the encounters according to their abilities and personalities is perfectly valid.


Is it cheating for a DM to only play as intelligently as the situation demands rather than playing all enemies with an equal level of competence?

No, it is not cheating to follow the rules, as you and your players all know.

But using tactics beyond the abilities (or desires) of the players can make the game less fun.

Also, using information that the DM knows but the monster doesn't, like who is the party's weakest link, is cheating. More importantly (since it comes up more often), using information that the monster has cleverly figured out, when the players don't know how he could have done so, is likely to feel like cheating to unimaginative players.


Am I a huge jerk for running smart enemies?

No. Running smart enemies does not make you a jerk. But running enemies that understand and use tactics better than the players do makes you seem like a jerk to players who don't want to learn tactics.


Are my players just idiots and whiners?

I have no idea. I haven't heard both sides of this. Based on reading your side alone, it sounds like they've bought into the modern idea that the PCs should never have a hard time, and should always face monsters face-to-face, since the encounter will always be one they can win that way. If that's true, then in my world-view, that would make them, as you say, "idiots and whiners".

But I haven't heard their side, and you've never succeeded in sounding like you really grasp their side.

Taking your words at face value, it appears like you have players who want every fight to be a straight-up face-to-face melee, in the middle of a flat plain, just using standard actions from the character sheets separate from any tactical plans that can change the situation. If that's what they want to play, then all tactics of camouflage, hit-and-run, take-down-the-weakest, etc. are simply in the way of what they want to do. If they want to feel like huge bad asses, then making a lesser enemy harder to kill with clever tactics is opposed to their goal.

But again, I don't know. I haven't heard their side.


Is the answer somewhere in between?

Almost undoubtedly. I've never met any DM who's as big a jerk as you represent them as thinking you are, and I've never met any player who's as clueless as you represent your players to be.


Or are these simply two incompatible play styles and I need to find a likeminded group in the future?

If you're right about who they are and what they want, then you're not the right DM for them. And if, after many games, you still don't know who they are and what they want, then also you aren't the right DM for them.

Hasn't that been the conclusion of every thread you start?

Talakeal
2013-08-31, 05:54 PM
Taking your words at face value, it appears like you have players who want every fight to be a straight-up face-to-face melee, in the middle of a flat plain, just using standard actions from the character sheets separate from any tactical plans that can change the situation. If that's what they want to play, then all tactics of camouflage, hit-and-run, take-down-the-weakest, etc. are simply in the way of what they want to do. If they want to feel like huge bad asses, then making a lesser enemy harder to kill with clever tactics is opposed to their goal.


Here is the thing, they DO want to use crazy tactics, they just don't want the enemies to respond in kind. Most of the time we have a problem it is because the players try and "bypass" an encounter or section of the adventure, and then when I go with what I feel are the natural reactions / consequences the players have always left a gaping hole in their plan and feel like I am screwing them when it comes back to bite them in the ass.

Take for example my last thread, where I planned on having a straight up fight against aboleths in a half flooded passage. The PCs cast a part water spell to trivialize the encounter, and then rather than trying to flop onto dry land after the PCs the aboleths instead hung back in the water and followed the PCs, waiting until the part water spell expired, which resulted in the PCs nearly TPKing after fighting several rooms worth of enemies at once.


Hasn't that been the conclusion of every thread you start?

Yes, yes it has. I have since dropped that group and don't know if I will ever come back. But still, I have had people outside the game, both IRL and on this forum, tell me that they would never game with a DM who pulled the type of "stunts" I pull, and I am trying to decide if I should actually change my DMing style or just be more careful about screening players when I get around to forming a new group.

Mr Beer
2013-08-31, 06:13 PM
Your players were terrible players, this is well established.

I had a GM who played every enemy encounter very intelligently and it got old. I think it's better to tailor it according to the enemy. Zombies, inexperienced combatants, the stupider humanoids and so on should usually fight in a straightforward and possibly sub-optimal fashion. Some powerful enemies will also behave like this out of arrogance, at least until they start losing.

Conversely, some enemies should go very hard indeed and ruthlessly exploit every character weakness possible. This most obviously applies to intelligent, "mastermind" type opponents, like necromancers, vampires, mind flayers etc. But it's also interesting to sometimes do this unexpectedly, for example Conan-type barbarians, who are not book-smart but know combat inside and out. Another example, the intelligent orc ambush trope is often used in D&D.

TL;DR - change it up

Thrudd
2013-08-31, 07:08 PM
I think there does need to be a balance in how encounters are played, and they need to be played according to the personalities and abilities of the monsters/npc that are involved. You may already be doing that, and if you are the players have no reason to complain. A green dragon that can cast spells is a highly intelligent opponent that would be expected to use its abilities to the fullest. Aboleths are equally very intelligent and dangerous enemy. If your players are facing opponents like these they must be quite high level, and I would think have learned enough about how you DM to be pretty confident in facing your challenges (apparently not, though). A creature of animal intelligence that is just hungry will just attack according to its instincts, and shouldn't be very hard to outsmart. As long as you really aren't giving the players' opponents an unfair advantage, I think everything you have described is fine. Sometimes it is ok to hold your players' hands, if they are new to the game or to your DM'ing style.
There are so many variables invovled, like what sort of DM'ing style are you using. Is it a sandbox world where the players decide where to go and what to do? Is it a linear narrative story where you send them from A to B to C and they don't really have any choice? Do they have a chance to find information about the challenges or prepare for them somewhat before they go into the dungeon, or is every challenge a complete surprise? These things will make a difference in how they react to your challenges, and how you should run the challenges.

Another thought: Are you starting your players out at high level, and then have them facing these powerful threats and complex dungeons right away and expect them to know how to deal with it? Maybe your players just haven't had enough actual play experience to know how to face that kind of challenge. That might be part of the problem. If you start a new group, consider starting at level 1 and introduce them to your style of challenges slowly. If a few characters die at level 1, it is a learning experience and not too much investment lost, and they will start learning how to think about your challenges. The encounters will be against enemies with fewer tactical options and generally lower stats, so they can deal with one thing at a time. Progressively introduce more difficult challenges and more tactical complications as they advance in level. By the time they are high enough level to fight aboleths and spell casting dragons, they will have seen it all and be ready for that kind of challenge, as well as know how to look at the big picture and not just view each encounter as an isolated event.

Talakeal
2013-08-31, 07:14 PM
Another thought: Are you starting your players out at high level, and then have them facing these powerful threats and complex dungeons right away and expect them to know how to deal with it? Maybe your players just haven't had enough actual play experience to know how to face that kind of challenge. That might be part of the problem. If you start a new group, consider starting at level 1 and introduce them to your style of challenges slowly. If a few characters die at level 1, it is a learning experience and not too much investment lost, and they will start learning how to think about your challenges.

I almost always start at level one.

My current* campaign was started at the equivalent of level 1 and are currently the equivalent of level 17.

Everyone was an experienced RPer when we started, and the game has been going on for about 8 years. Since that time I think my players have become WORSE at the game, both when it comes to tactical decisions and their OOC ability to interact with one another at the table.

*Which is on indefinite hiatus.

Thrudd
2013-08-31, 07:24 PM
Well that's just weird, after 8 years together I'd think you guys would have a good group dynamic. Maybe they are just tired of playing D&D, or RPG's in general. Not everybody feels like playing strategy and tactics all the time. Those of us who gravitate toward DM'ing don't generally have that problem, we usually love it and can spend countless hours designing and planning games. Not all players have the same propensity.

Pink
2013-08-31, 07:32 PM
One thing I've heard from a player is that they expect different tones from different games. Not sure if this might be the case here, but might be related.

But for an example, he said that when he plays D&D, he wants to be the big damn hero. Save the princess, uncover the plot, beat up the bad guy.

But when playing Shaowrun, he expects to be the underdog, to face intelligent opponents with more resources, and that a good day is a break even day. Avoid the police, hope you don't get double crossed, etc.

It's not that he prefers one style to the others, but he expects different things when paying a game. He'd get frustrated out being outsmarted by enemies in D&D, but when it happens in Shadowrun it's just part of the game.

Slipperychicken
2013-08-31, 08:35 PM
Are my players just idiots and whiners? Is the answer somewhere in between? Or are these simply two incompatible play styles and I need to find a likeminded group in the future?

I'll hop on the 'player/GM expectations' bandwagon, because sometimes I want to turn my brain off and stomp things without thinking, and other times I want a cerebral challenge.

The only way to decide on one playstyle be 'better' is whichever one you enjoy more.

nedz
2013-08-31, 09:47 PM
Your players were terrible players, this is well established.

I had a GM who played every enemy encounter very intelligently and it got old. I think it's better to tailor it according to the enemy. Zombies, inexperienced combatants, the stupider humanoids and so on should usually fight in a straightforward and possibly sub-optimal fashion. Some powerful enemies will also behave like this out of arrogance, at least until they start losing.

Conversely, some enemies should go very hard indeed and ruthlessly exploit every character weakness possible. This most obviously applies to intelligent, "mastermind" type opponents, like necromancers, vampires, mind flayers etc. But it's also interesting to sometimes do this unexpectedly, for example Conan-type barbarians, who are not book-smart but know combat inside and out. Another example, the intelligent orc ambush trope is often used in D&D.

TL;DR - change it up

this basically.

I've done more or less everything on your list, but I've also had monsters/NPCs do stupid things. Role play your monsters more.

valadil
2013-08-31, 10:15 PM
I gotta be honest. I think your players are whiny. If you appease them in this, they'll find something else to whine about.

To answer the question, I agree with everyone that says that enemies should behave according to their intelligence. Illithid Wizards will use every trick you can think of and several you can't. Mentally damaged trolls will swing at whatever is closest to them. I think this part is indisputable.

Personally I prefer a variety in what sort of enemies get thrown at the PCs. As a player I'd get tired of only dim witted brutes. Do you ever use enemies that don't use good tactics because they don't know how to think tactically?

I'm tempted to say cater to your players. Throw them on a quest to kill a thousand trolls and stop worrying about tactics. I don't actually like that idea though. It seems to me that you happen to enjoy this part of the game and the GM should be able to enjoy his own game.

I've played with several GMs who habitually used encounters that broke CR in the face and danced on its corpse. That can be fun, and that's part of their style. I'd also appreciate a GM whose style is to out think the players. You can't say one style is superior to the other. I will say though that the GM always has free reign over what he pulls out of the monster manual. I don't really feel defeated when the GM decides to throw three Tarrasques against our level 12 party. It just feels like he went overboard on his power trip. It's cheap. Losing to superior tactics doesn't necessarily feel that way (although the counter argument is that after losing to superior tactics over and over, one might give up and assume the GM is too smart to be beaten.)

Frozen_Feet
2013-08-31, 10:28 PM
Depends on the monsters/opposition. The GM is roleplaying too, and should assume the role of whatever is up against the PCs. I play dumb animals as dub animals, cunning criminals as cunning criminals, and diabolic masterminds as diabolic masterminds, to the extent I just can.

Your group might have a point of advanced tactics being "unfair" if the opponent is a rabble of peasants or band of thugs. But if they're fighting soldiers or other organized foe, it'd be madness to complain about them fighting cheaply. That's what such foes do, duh.

I'd make a point that just because some tactic makes your players foam, doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't use such tactic. It's okay for in-game events to occasionally cause negative emotions, such as frustration. Just don't over-use such tactics so your players won't feel like you're swindling them. Remember to reward preparations against these maneuvers.

NovenFromTheSun
2013-09-01, 01:07 AM
How much have you talked to your players between sessions about this? You seem to at least gotten comments from them, but I don't know if there's been a full conversation.

Platymus Pus
2013-09-01, 02:59 AM
Do both really.
switch between them or hit them hard and intelligently.

Kane0
2013-09-01, 03:03 AM
If I was DMing a group like that I would just :smallconfused: at them and tell them to cry some more (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WHptG35EWU). The inhabitants of the gameworld have INT scores, deal with it.

But seriously, you cant possibly expect every single fight to be against bad video game AI. I'd hate that as a player and as a DM. If they like hack and slash that's fine, maybe tone down some of your fight to be a little more straightforward, but never just take away smart fighting entirely.

See if you can find a balance between placating the tantrum players and being a 'jerk DM' with the intelligent combats. Mindless creatures herded by intelligent bosses maybe? Giving out spells and magic items that make opponents as smart as the PCs? Maybe start a thread about making 'creative straightforward combats' rather than asking about your players (because the answer seems to invariably be that they are acting like juvenile brats :smallamused:).

P.S. At least the fights are memorable, eh?

Rhynn
2013-09-01, 03:23 AM
So, in summary, should DMs turn off their brains when playing monsters? Is it cheating for a DM to only play as intelligently as the situation demands rather than playing all enemies with an equal level of competence?

Am I a huge jerk for running smart enemies? Are my players just idiots and whiners? Is the answer somewhere in between? Or are these simply two incompatible play styles and I need to find a likeminded group in the future?

As usual, your players suck. My players appreciate being challenged, and I appreciate their challenging me. Usually, they end up winning, because they are magnificent bastards; sometimes, they do something stupid (squeezing into vents in a 3.5 game to fight chokers, who promptly strangled them from 10 ft. away) and get defeated or even wiped out. Everyone has fun, because losing is part of a game, too! (You'd think very poorly of someone who threw a fit over losing at Risk or Monopoly, I bet!)

Also, you seem to have gotten silly opinions from both sides of the fence. Enemies should be as smart as they are, not hyper-intelligent super-villains on level with Xanatos. Orcs may be dumber than dragons. Kobolds may be cowardly. Enemies should have weaknesses, but they shouldn't be all weakness. Your approach, from what you describe, is pretty excellent.

As to the college experience: younger players, especially, often just want to feel like badasses. My campaigns up to age 18 or so were much like you describe that other DM's college game. (I have a strong impression that American college students have, on average, the emotional maturity of high school students in my country...) A lot of bang and flash, little substance. It was all part of growing up, as a person and as a player/game master.

However, the fact is that a continued campaign is a compromise between all the people participating in it. No one - players or DM - has the responsibility to bow to the wishes of the others, but if there is no agreement or compromise about the nature and style of the game, it's probably a bad idea to keep the group together and play grudgingly and unhappily.

That is: it's not your responsibility to cater to the players, but if you really want them to be happy, you may have to compromise. If that compromise makes you unhappy, you should just not play with them.


Also, everything Jay R wrote is gold (as usual), especially the bit about bribery and the insight about what may feel like cheating to players (and why).

Amphetryon
2013-09-01, 05:42 AM
There's a dirty secret about the Evil Overlord List: BBEGs who assiduously avoid any of the pitfalls on it lose about 80% of their vulnerabilities (in addition to a bunch of trope-driven narrative). Have them behave intelligently in battlefield tactics as well as strategically all the time, and it can often feel to the Players that they're up against Moore's Ozymandias - and foiling his plans didn't work out the way the Watchmen wanted, either. In other words, unless you want to run a rather bleak world that enforces a sense of hopelessness on the Players, consistently playing the enemies so that they neither make mistakes nor allow the PCs to escape their own "errors" in judgement (where "errors" could well be the belief that bypassing the encounter is a victory), you're going to want to give the Players a break once in a while.

Lorsa
2013-09-01, 06:09 AM
Like someone said, it is pretty hard to get an accurate picture of what is going on in the game without hearing the side of the players. Nevertheless, let me share some of my thoughts.

The GM has ALL the knowledge. He knows the player characters strengths and abilities, he can decide how the terrain look, what enemies are where etc etc. You can easily kill off players anytime you want. At the same rate, it is quite easy to be too intelligent when directing enemies as a GM. For ezample, when playing a modern game, if the players have an enemy that wants to take them out a sniper on a roof is the smart thing to do. It's not very fun though as the only real counter to that is to never go outside or be close to windows (or walls with too little armor rating). Smart isn't always constructive to roleplaying as it can easily negate anything the players might do.

Let's look through your list:


Having enemies use hit and run tactics.
Have the enemies use stealth and ambush the party.
Have enemies run away when the players buff up or fortify an area and then attack them later when they have lost the protection.
Have enemies use terrain to their advantages.
Have enemy monsters use spellcasting as buffs.
When the players bypass a monster on the way into the dungeon and have it either follow them deeper in or wait for them to come back out.
Enemies who call for help.
Villains who don't make every mistake on the evil overlord list.
Enemies who use social skills to lie to the players or convince neutral NPCs to help them.

My question here would be: can the players use the same tactics? Like I said, the GM controls everything so it's quite easy to negate player tactics and let yours always be successfull.

Does hit and run tactics work for the players too?
Can players use ambushes too or will the enemies always notice and set out counter-ambushes or run away?
Is it okay for the players to flee from monters when they have buffed up? If you never let the players use buffs but the enemies use them consistently then you negate their actions.
Then we get to terrain again... is your constructed terrain always beneficial for the enemies? If so, why?
If they bypass a monster - are all monsters out to kill the PCs? Some might just be protecting their lair and if they never go in why would they follow them? Some would of course.
As for calling for help or raising alarm - not much to say about that really, except your should construct your encounters with that in mind otherwise we are back to you can easily swarm the players and kill them. You control how many that can hear a cry for help after all.
I have no idea what the "overlord mistake list" is, but some enemies need to be overconfident to be interesting to fight.
As for lying to players - again there is no issue unless the NPCs automatically see through player lies so they can never get away with the same thing.

Basically it all boils down to the same thing; you shouldn't use your powers as a GM to negate player skills/abilities/tactics and always let the enemies tactics succeed. It is easy to be 'too smart', and being clever doesn't always lead to fun play. Don't use your knowledge about the players and the world to influence enemies decisions and don't use your powers to always (sometimes is ok) set up scenarios where the enemies have the advantage.

Also, in a fight you have to react within seconds. Noone makes the "best decisions" when getting hit with a sword. I usually encourage my players to simply use their instincts and make snap decisions in the midst of a battle and not treat it like a MMO (let's focus fire on the healers first!). Naturally my enemies work the same way. Some are smarter, some are dumber and some are incredibly smart BUT their smart plan fails because of some ability the players have that the NPC doesn't know about. The last part I've found is usually the most rewarding for players; when enemies are clever but don't know everything.

Hyena
2013-09-01, 07:05 AM
You know, I have been reading this forum for a while, and I can't help but notice that you DM ungrateful jerks. All the time.

johnbragg
2013-09-01, 07:14 AM
There was an AD&D module "Reverse Dungeon", designed so that the players would play the monsters against the party of PCs. First the PCs controlled members of a goblin tribe, then some mid-level monsters in a "decoy dungeon", then the high-level monsters in the lich's semi-abandoned quarters.

We had a lot of fun running that one. The goblin tribe (PCs) TPK'd the adventuring party, except for one adventurer who they fooled into taking the passage downwards, which no goblin had ever returned from. The 1st level party made rookie adventuring mistakes, while the goblins used terrain, ambushes and missile weapons to great effect.

Maybe your players would enjoy playing under-powered but intelligent monsters, running rings around none-too-bright Dudley Doright paladins and such.

jedipotter
2013-09-01, 07:45 AM
So, in summary, should DMs turn off their brains when playing monsters? Is it cheating for a DM to only play as intelligently as the situation demands rather than playing all enemies with an equal level of competence?

Am I a huge jerk for running smart enemies? Are my players just idiots and whiners? Is the answer somewhere in between? Or are these simply two incompatible play styles and I need to find a likeminded group in the future?

I'm a DM just like you. Have a young red dragon in some lava caves doing the whole 'Alien' type hit and run and such. I've even had similar things at the game store. The game at the next table ''defeats a dragon of every color'' in like an hour, while in my game they take ''the whole game to fight just one gnome.'' The same way they will brag on how they killed a dragon that ''just walked out of a cave and stood there making claw and bite attacks'', compared to one of my ''super tactics dragons''.

Some players love it, some don't. I call them 'video game' players: they are used to video game monsters that just come on the screen and stand there and wait for you to kill them.

They are incompatible play stlyes.

prufock
2013-09-01, 08:30 AM
You should play monsters to their strengths. All creatures are going to have tactics adapted to their abilities and environment. They should use those tactics. As long as you aren't playing them in a way that exceeds their intelligence, you aren't really doing anything wrong.

One important thing to remember, though, is that CR is modified by the enemies having advantages. If they have favourable terrain, preset ambushes, or traps, for instance, you should increase the CR. A CR 1 monster played very intelligently could very well be equivalent to a CR 2 or 3.

The tactics you listed are things I do as a matter of course. If these are considered penis moves, your players are probably simply whining. What kind of poor fool thinks these things are "cheating?"

Amphetryon
2013-09-01, 08:38 AM
You should play monsters to their strengths. All creatures are going to have tactics adapted to their abilities and environment. They should use those tactics. As long as you aren't playing them in a way that exceeds their intelligence, you aren't really doing anything wrong.

One important thing to remember, though, is that CR is modified by the enemies having advantages. If they have favourable terrain, preset ambushes, or traps, for instance, you should increase the CR. A CR 1 monster played very intelligently could very well be equivalent to a CR 2 or 3.

The tactics you listed are things I do as a matter of course. If these are considered penis moves, your players are probably simply whining. What kind of poor fool thinks these things are "cheating?"

The sort that doesn't want to have the "Tucker's Kobolds Treatment" applied to every enemy, I suspect.

jedipotter
2013-09-01, 10:02 AM
The sort that doesn't want to have the "Tucker's Kobolds Treatment" applied to every enemy, I suspect.

I do wonder about the poor fools who what like half of the foes to be all ''80's video game stlye''. They really expect foes to walk up to them, in bright daylight, stand a few feet away and just attack.

And it is not just intelligent tactics, as ''dumb animals'' can sure do some great stuff with out a doctrate in combat tactics.

Threadnaught
2013-09-01, 11:16 AM
I've only had my players fight three four enemies who used suboptimal tactics.

A Lich who wanted them to use all of their power against him so he could gauge their strengths. They were doing so badly against a Lich who wasn't even trying to kill them, he began punching them while in fits of laughter. They still hate him, even after having destroyed his phylactery almost immediately afterward.

The Kraken, who is really just full of hot air. Won't be long before his worshippers' faith regenerates his body though. They'll have to fight him again and now he knows they're a threat to him.

The Aspect of Atropus, not as the Elder Evil, but as some mech created by an ancient civilization. Removed some powers and made to protect the remnants of that civilization, they made it self destruct in an explosion of negative energy.

A bunch of muggers, a dozen-ish 1st level Warriors surrounded them in an alley and demanded all their money. That ******* Druid (who was in Megaraptor form) tore one guy in half and the Wizard smacked another with his staff, t*D decided to chase after the muggers for even more money after they dropped their weapons and all their earnings, one guy hid behind a bunch of stuff and cried. They enjoyed this one far more than the other examples, mostly because they got to hear what people were saying about their characters.


It can be enjoyable to fight against this kind of enemy regularly, but for some players it can be enjoyable to overcome a challenge. Your players seem to be more likely to enjoy fighting wave after wave of mindless enemies.

Madwand99
2013-09-01, 12:11 PM
I really think you should try a different system. Whatever system you are currently using, it seems to be "simulationist" in nature, i.e. it enforces realistic consequences and allows for realistic strategies. Generally, I prefer this kind of system myself, and I would love your GMing style (as long as I got to ambush the enemies once in a while myself, and my intelligent tactics worked occasionally).

Your players might have more fun if you used a more "gamist" system, like Legend (http://www.ruleofcool.com/get-the-game/) or D&D 4e. It's still possible to use good tactics in these systems, but the effects of strategy are limited (and it is on the strategic level that your players are failing so horribly). Fights in systems like this perhaps more closely resemble the Hydra fight you were talking about, while hit-and-fade tactics like your dragon fight are more difficult to pull off. The effects of either players or the GM being more intelligent than the other party are mitigated in these kinds of systems, and things mostly just come down to the numbers. Whether you could enjoy these systems is something else entirely, of course.

Rosstin
2013-09-01, 12:27 PM
You need to cater to your players. Don't run your monsters smart if your players can't handle it. Try running some dumb monsters. Give your players a chance to conquer a nation of stupid people.

skyth
2013-09-01, 01:01 PM
Sounds like there are a couple potential issues here.

The first is differing expectations. Have you discussed with the players what they are looking for in a campaign and vice versa. That can potentially solve some issues.

The second is this has a potential to be a DM trying to beat the players situation rather than the DM trying to challenge the characters. Some things in your description make it seem like possibly the former. Especially the part about monsters going after the weakest players. How do they know that they are the weakest? Monsters run away when players have buffs on. How do the monsters know that the players have temporary buffs on? A DM knows all of each characters strengths and weaknesses along with being privy to the tactical discussion players make around the table. Do you use that information against the players?

I've had a DM (In 1.5 edition AD&D) that wanted to have 'smart' encounters. Basically it resulted in random damage to the players regardless of what you did. As a couple examples, we were camped for the night against a rock face. Some goblins attacked us from the opposite side of the rock face with long range indirect bow fire. Random damage for everyone. I ran up against the rock face thinking that physics would be in place, but apparently the shots were coming straight down...No change in the random damage received. Another was going down a trapped passageway. There were pressure plates on the floor that triggered spears. Everyone rolled to see if they were hit (regardless of AC, etc). I reminded the DM that I was actually flying (And this wasn't new information) and couldn't trigger a plate. Well, no change to me being hit...Only he added a penalty to me due to 'being hit in the leg then'.

Of course, in that campaign whether your ideas worked or not sometimes depended on who you were. *shrugs* But that was another problem.

prufock
2013-09-01, 01:04 PM
The sort that doesn't want to have the "Tucker's Kobolds Treatment" applied to every enemy, I suspect.

It doesn't sound like that's what they're getting, though. Even if they don't want it, to call it "cheating" is ridiculous.

Re'ozul
2013-09-01, 02:32 PM
There are a few things that I tend to try and avoid from the list in the OP

Having enemies use hit and run tactics
Depending on frequency and the party's ability to see them coming (spells, common sense etc) they can breed an environment of paranoia. This leads either to very careful PCs or makes the players go "screw this". If this happens in a forest they may decide to torch the entire forest.

Have the enemies use stealth and ambush the party.
This builds into a houserule I have. Skillchecks happen all the time, but unless you roll actively you are considered to have rolled a 0 (doing nothing in particular) down to a -10 (distracted by conversation or similar).
I put this here because sometimes the answer of a DM to an ambush is "You didn't roll spot/perception/whatever". If there is a passive system for the party to have even a chance of noticing an ambush out of the blue this scenario isn't a problem.

Have enemies use terrain to their advantages.
Players will NEVER have as well a grasp on the environment as the DM. As such it is necessary to point out all or virtually all such environmental opportunities to the player at the start of combat, even if they don't ask. The latter part is important because players (even if a map is given) will most likely have a different 3D interpretation of it than the DM or even each other.


Beyond these there is only really one thing that Idislike on both sides of the screen. Throwing something at the players where they have little chance to no chance of being able to counter it in character.
Example: In one of my games (Pathfinder) I am currently playing a Catfolk Rogue. I whine a lot about him, mostly because he has really bad luck with the dice. But that aside, the party (all level 4) was at an abandoned lighthouse. Everyone but my character decided to make camp on the bottom floor, while I climbed to the top and slept there.
During the night the light turned on. At this point my character started looking at the light in puzzlement and the next moment (actually the DM later said that several miutes went by, but we had a narrative diconnect there between him and me) a wraith comes out of a nearby wall and slashes at me resulting in 4 con drain.
My character willfully retreats over the wall (ring of feather fall) and the others wake up. Now what to do? A knowledge check gave us enough to know that its an enemy that we have little chance of killing (no ghost touch, no cleric) and is faster than us. We fought for a bit (well everyone else did, my cat legged it) then they decided to run as well (the wraith actually managed to miss all but one of its attacks). We were lucky that apparently it couldn't move further than 100ft from the lighthouse.

So it seems to have worked out well right?
Well, the cavalier now has 2 con drain, I have 4 and we are in a situation with very little chance to heal that for several levels. Also, in that situation is basically unknowable DM fiat that saved us (limited range for the wraith). The enemy was a situation the party had no actual means of combatting except for lots of luck. Those are the kind of situations that shouldn't arise in my opinion.

It wasn't the DMs fault in this case though as we are following a module and he is leary of making deviations in case things are important. Our group composition was the problem here. (Rogue, Cavalier, Monk, Inquisitor)

Angel Bob
2013-09-01, 02:46 PM
Have enemies run away when the players buff up or fortify an area and then attack them later when they have lost the protection.

This is the only tactic I would take issue with. As a DM, I'd rather reward players' careful preparations than play my monsters as intelligently as possible. It can be exceedingly frustrating to spend all those resources (even if they're just spells that will replenish after you rest) and then find that it was a total waste.

Talakeal
2013-09-01, 02:52 PM
Lots of good points.

Yes, my players are free to use whatever tactics they like, although I did say that I would not use really dishonorable tactics (attacking them or their allies one at a time during civilian life) unless the PCs also did it.*

Terrain is usually neutral, although when they are fighting a monster that lives in an environment the monster will usually be suited for that environment. For example, monsters with swim speeds will usually live in or near water, those with the ability to icewalk will usually live in a frozen region, and those who have dark vision usually live in a place with little natural light.

The players HATE this fact, and whine anytime they are fighting monsters outside of an arena. Note that there are two characters in the party who are perfectly capable of rearranging or altering the terrain on a whim with magic in the party.

*: This came up when their job was to infiltrate a local mercenary company who was accused of selling their services to the BBEG. Their plan was to simply find out the name of every employee and then snipe them during their off duty hours. I told them that was really low, and that if they did that they could expect me to use similar tactics in the future.

Rosstin
2013-09-01, 02:57 PM
Honestly, Tala, it sounds like you and your players' differing views on how to play are only part of the problem. There seems to be a lack of willingness to meet halfway going on.

Why don't you try running a session the way your players want it, unironically, and see what happens?

Talakeal
2013-09-01, 03:02 PM
The second is this has a potential to be a DM trying to beat the players situation rather than the DM trying to challenge the characters. Some things in your description make it seem like possibly the former. Especially the part about monsters going after the weakest players. How do they know that they are the weakest? Monsters run away when players have buffs on. How do the monsters know that the players have temporary buffs on? A DM knows all of each characters strengths and weaknesses along with being privy to the tactical discussion players make around the table. Do you use that information against the players?


When I say the enemies retreat when the players are buffed, I don't mean simple bull's strength type stuff, I mean stuff which makes it impossible to the monsters to realistically do anything but die.

Invisibility against enemies with poor listen, flight against enemies without ranged weapons, spells which grant immunity to the enemies primary attack form, walls of stone / force which force the monsters to attack the party one at a time, or, like in the aboleth example, part water to make an aquatic enemy have to fight on dry land.

In these cases there is nothing the monsters can do except run away or die.


This is the only tactic I would take issue with. As a DM, I'd rather reward players' careful preparations than play my monsters as intelligently as possible. It can be exceedingly frustrating to spend all those resources (even if they're just spells that will replenish after you rest) and then find that it was a total waste.

See above.



Also, people keep saying I regularly target the weakest member. I did not say this, I said I did it one time when I had a dragon using hit and run. What I meant by "weakest member" is he targeted people with the lightest armor first (fairly obvious to tell just be looking at someone) and then attempted to keep attacking the same person until they were disabled rather than splitting damage evenly between the party.
This is a fairly standard tactic, and I can't think of many fights where the PCs don't focus fire or try and attack the enemies whom they have the best chance of hitting.

TriForce
2013-09-01, 03:29 PM
Hmm, well first of all, i think that enemies should be played as smart as they are. a random orc probably wont do much more then smash or run, but a dragon is smarter then a average human, and a lot are smarter then all but the smartest human. offcourse they will use every advantage, they are creatures with goals, motivation and a will to live, they wont play "fair" unless its to their own advantage.

that being said, they also have emotions, so they CAN be angered and taunted, something my group explioted to distract the dragon from the thing he was protecting.

basically, if you always play your monsters that way (smart when they ARE smart) your party should have figured that out LONG ago, and they should have adjusted their tactics to expect things like that, the fact that they didnt shows that they dont WANT to be challenged, they want to kill a lot of creatures ":belkar: :because they have green skins and fangs and we dont"

playing your monsters dumb does not make one a better DM in my opinion, the opposite in fact, but you COULD try it, and slowly ramp it up, if your willing to spend the effort. my personal opinion: dont, just find people with brains and its all good

Amphetryon
2013-09-01, 05:56 PM
It doesn't sound like that's what they're getting, though. Even if they don't want it, to call it "cheating" is ridiculous.

Did I say otherwise?

Lorsa
2013-09-02, 03:27 AM
Yes, my players are free to use whatever tactics they like, although I did say that I would not use really dishonorable tactics (attacking them or their allies one at a time during civilian life) unless the PCs also did it.*

Terrain is usually neutral, although when they are fighting a monster that lives in an environment the monster will usually be suited for that environment. For example, monsters with swim speeds will usually live in or near water, those with the ability to icewalk will usually live in a frozen region, and those who have dark vision usually live in a place with little natural light.

The players HATE this fact, and whine anytime they are fighting monsters outside of an arena. Note that there are two characters in the party who are perfectly capable of rearranging or altering the terrain on a whim with magic in the party.

I haven't been following all your previous threads of course, but from what you say it seems as though you are aware of the things I said and the players are simply trying to cheat your encounters.

It also seems to me that you and them have vastly different ideas about consequences. This is something that will cause friction in any group. While there is noone that is right or wrong as such I think I would prefer monsters that at least had some brainactivity and survival instincts to those that just stand still and hit like a poorly designed MMO boss.

That being said, in D&D 3.5, the MM list for CR sort of assume that the monsters will be somewhat "stupid" and if you play them very intelligent (aboleths and dragons in particular) they can become more dangerous than their CR say. Even a group of kobolds where everyone has taken the improved trip feat can be pretty bad.

Fibinachi
2013-09-02, 06:01 AM
I think the answer isn't two or three, the answer is pineapple.

That is, it's not really a question of answering what your question what a dm should do (harder or smarter or whatever), but about other things. For instance, many, many others have already asked - are you sure the game you play with your group is the game they want to play with you? That could be the root of this issue, as such.

If The Other Table always has more players, then what does that table do differently, beyond tactical encounter setups? If I had a fight with a twelve headed pyrodragon tossing out stupid amounts of damage while I and my peers did the same, and that's what I was looking for, I would feel pretty badass, yeah.
Feeling badass is pretty cool. Maybe it's less "The hydra used sub-optimal positioning and inferior damage spread, which did not leverage its tactical capacities to the maximum in that situation" and more "They were described as fighting a twelve headed hydra which attacked everyone equally, and they felt really cool about bashing its head in, and with everyone being attacked equally, no one felt picked on by a DM out for blood, and they knew they were all in it together, because as damage accrued, weaker members would drop, and the now free heads re-target - so they had to work fast to beat the thing, and they did".

Different example.

I like playing roguelikes. I find it statisfying to get destroyed by a merciless dungeon, and I enjoy the care you need to exert on your environments in order to not die brutally. Losing is fun!

However, roguelikes rely on random number generators, and some of them have spawning mechanics embedded. So let me tell you something - if the ogre in Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup pulps me on the first level, because he was spawned on the first level by atrocious accident, that's fine.

I could have avoided him, and it's only annoying.

If I walk down the stairs, in an open, empty room, from one level to another, with three hit points after a gruelling battle, and then find that at the same time, the RNG spawns an ogre with the message "An ogre wanders down the stairs" (those same stairs I just wandered down from, from an empty room I add), and that ogre proceeds to instant kill me, that's not fine, that's frustrating.

A lack of choice to influence the outcome, and the sensation of arbitrary punishment is frustrating. It's not about punishing mistakes, it's about rewarding right choices.


When I say the enemies retreat when the players are buffed, I don't mean simple bull's strength type stuff, I mean stuff which makes it impossible to the monsters to realistically do anything but die.

Invisibility against enemies with poor listen, flight against enemies without ranged weapons, spells which grant immunity to the enemies primary attack form, walls of stone / force which force the monsters to attack the party one at a time, or, like in the aboleth example, part water to make an aquatic enemy have to fight on dry land.

In these cases there is nothing the monsters can do except run away or die.

For instance, here.

They just used their best / strongest / most awesome buffs to fight something, which then proceeds to run away.

Not frustrating, but perhaps annoying, from a ressource-minded adventurers perspective - my careful preperation has gone unrewarded. So now the enemy flees. Can they catch it? Is there a chance of moving on with the raid /whatever while still having those buffs going? If so, then it's not frustrating either. After all, the fight just changed, and the enemy was smart enough to flee when facing a foe it couldn't beat, and the problem just changed. No one was punished for anything, really.

And then the buff runs out, and the enemy comes back. If this happens a lot, I'd argue (carefully), that chances are it will begin to feel frustrating for a player. After all, if the buffs they use are of no import, because the enemy just avoids them and strikes when they're out, then what's the point of bothering to buff in the first place, it'd be a complete waste of time.

And wasting time can feel frustrating. Being punished for not locking down the enemy can feel frustrating, when you wanted to be rewarded for thinking of using buffs the right way.

Having enemies flee works wonders towards also making them feel like they have a sense of self-preservation (And oddly, in my games, it also makes the players much less likely to kill someone, since they know they don't want to die...), but if the enemy always gets away, is never there or just avoids me, and strikes when I'm at my weakest, I begin to feel frustrated, yes.

Example:


Also, people keep saying I regularly target the weakest member. I did not say this, I said I did it one time when I had a dragon using hit and run. What I meant by "weakest member" is he targeted people with the lightest armor first (fairly obvious to tell just be looking at someone) and then attempted to keep attacking the same person until they were disabled rather than splitting damage evenly between the party.

Yes, yes and yes. Geek the mage first. Stab the unarmored guy.

But - did you indicate the dragon knew that, for instance? The difference between:

"The dragon roars and strikes from the shadows, speeding by like a blur of green nightmare you're almost thankful was too fast to see, and you take XX damage"

and

"The dragon roars, and spotting you in your pap-mache, foam and biscuit armor, decides you're the weakest target, and then blurs by.... you take XX damage"

is that while nothing has changed at all mechanically, the player being targeted now knows why. It's easy to spot, and understandable, and so no longer frustrating, but reasonable.

Information about consequences, availability to influence the percieved outcome and a sense of fairness goes a long way towards making sure people don't feel frustrated or cry foul, and even start having fun when you do hit and run attacks using Realms of Chaos Hollow and Ephmeremal Watchers, who can do nonlethal damage in teleport-form and break weapons that strike them.

"Smart" enemies often feel frustrating to fight, in my opinion, because as a DM I have a lot of extra information I don't really specifically need to share that still changes the tactics of the smart enemy, which can feel frustrating on the fly to players who aren't quite priviledged in having access to the entire cosmos.

Vizzerdrix
2013-09-02, 06:42 AM
Having enemies use hit and run tactics.
Have the enemies use stealth and ambush the party.
Have enemies run away when the players buff up or fortify an area and then attack them later when they have lost the protection.
Have enemies use terrain to their advantages.
Have enemy monsters use spellcasting as buffs.
When the players bypass a monster on the way into the dungeon and have it either follow them deeper in or wait for them to come back out.
Enemies who call for help.
Villains who don't make every mistake on the evil overlord list.
Enemies who use social skills to lie to the players or convince neutral NPCs to help them.

:smallbiggrin:

If you ever run a PBP, I want in if this is your style. :smallsmile:

TheDarkSaint
2013-09-02, 12:45 PM
Perhaps part of the job of being the DM is to not only figure out what the NPC's might do in combat, but how they might be defeated.

For example:

I had an encounter where some goblins had lined up with the shield wall and phalanx feats. They were highly armored, so their final AC was WAY out of the numbers possible for the PC's. They also included several goblins with long spear, 2 crossbow goblins and a sorceror. (I had a really big party)

In looking at my encounter, I had to see the ways around it. They wouldn't be able to just attack their way through the shield wall (believe me, the dumber players tried and paid for it by the longspears and crossbows)

However, since goblins are Small, it's easy to bullrush, overrun, tumble past, trip, grapple....Once the players figured it out, the phalanx quickly crumbled.

I built in multiple weaknesses to what seemed like a really tough encounter. It's not always possible to do, but I think you might take into consideration "what the weakness of this encounter that the PC's could exploit if my monsters act in an intelligent fashion?"

That way, you get the satisfaction of running intelligent monsters who react in the correct fashion while the PC's have to think to kill the Monsters and don't get so frustrated.

nedz
2013-09-02, 04:31 PM
Perhaps part of the job of being the DM is to not only figure out what the NPC's might do in combat, but how they might be defeated.

For example:

I had an encounter where some goblins had lined up with the shield wall and phalanx feats. They were highly armored, so their final AC was WAY out of the numbers possible for the PC's. They also included several goblins with long spear, 2 crossbow goblins and a sorceror. (I had a really big party)

In looking at my encounter, I had to see the ways around it. They wouldn't be able to just attack their way through the shield wall (believe me, the dumber players tried and paid for it by the longspears and crossbows)

However, since goblins are Small, it's easy to bullrush, overrun, tumble past, trip, grapple....Once the players figured it out, the phalanx quickly crumbled.

I built in multiple weaknesses to what seemed like a really tough encounter. It's not always possible to do, but I think you might take into consideration "what the weakness of this encounter that the PC's could exploit if my monsters act in an intelligent fashion?"

That way, you get the satisfaction of running intelligent monsters who react in the correct fashion while the PC's have to think to kill the Monsters and don't get so frustrated.

I often do this sort of thing at low level. At high level though I do the exact opposite, especially if the party contains decent casters.

Amphetryon
2013-09-02, 04:37 PM
Perhaps part of the job of being the DM is to not only figure out what the NPC's might do in combat, but how they might be defeated.

For example:

I had an encounter where some goblins had lined up with the shield wall and phalanx feats. They were highly armored, so their final AC was WAY out of the numbers possible for the PC's. They also included several goblins with long spear, 2 crossbow goblins and a sorceror. (I had a really big party)

In looking at my encounter, I had to see the ways around it. They wouldn't be able to just attack their way through the shield wall (believe me, the dumber players tried and paid for it by the longspears and crossbows)

However, since goblins are Small, it's easy to bullrush, overrun, tumble past, trip, grapple....Once the players figured it out, the phalanx quickly crumbled.

I built in multiple weaknesses to what seemed like a really tough encounter. It's not always possible to do, but I think you might take into consideration "what the weakness of this encounter that the PC's could exploit if my monsters act in an intelligent fashion?"

That way, you get the satisfaction of running intelligent monsters who react in the correct fashion while the PC's have to think to kill the Monsters and don't get so frustrated.This works well if the party has one or more Players who is adept at thinking along the same lines as the DM. If that's not the case, it can devolve into a game of "guess what the DM is thinking" before too long.

nedz
2013-09-02, 05:33 PM
This works well if the party has one or more Players who is adept at thinking along the same lines as the DM. If that's not the case, it can devolve into a game of "guess what the DM is thinking" before too long.

It can be like this but I tend to view it as a degree of difficulty thing.

If I can see at least one way the party could succeed then it's an easier challenge than if I can't see any such way.

In any event the party will, hopefully, find another solution I hadn't considered. Obviously, at high level, they have many more options.

It only becomes as you describe if there is only one possible solution, which is something else entirely.

Scow2
2013-09-02, 06:53 PM
As anyone who follows my threads knows, I have a long history of players who throw temper tantrums when anything goes wrong. However, I noticed that a common thread in 90% of my problem cases is that people are mad because I play the enemies intelligently. For example:

Having enemies use hit and run tactics.
Have the enemies use stealth and ambush the party.
Have enemies run away when the players buff up or fortify an area and then attack them later when they have lost the protection.
Have enemies use terrain to their advantages.
Have enemy monsters use spellcasting as buffs.
When the players bypass a monster on the way into the dungeon and have it either follow them deeper in or wait for them to come back out.
Enemies who call for help.
Villains who don't make every mistake on the evil overlord list.
Enemies who use social skills to lie to the players or convince neutral NPCs to help them.

I'm going to ask more about these:
1. What do the monsters gain for using Hit And Run tactics, aside from harassing the PCs?
2. What has the party done to allow themselves to be ambushed/snuck up on? Why are they being attacked by surprise?
3. How do the enemies know the PCs have buffed and fortified an area? - This one comes across the most as a "**** Move", because it can easily be metagame knowledge.
4. Depends on the monster and terrain. Should be fair, though
5. Didn't you put a limit on buffs? I'll talk about magic instead Monsters being able to Nova when PCs have to conserve resources is an imbalance that should be taken into consideration.
6. Still being there isn't a problem. But, if they slip by it undetected, it shouldn't wait. However, bypassing a monster isn't defeating it.
7. Ehh... if there's help to call, they can call it, but it should be clear there's a chance of reinforcements.
8. This is a biggy - the Evil Overlord list creates invincible villians. In storytelling media, having a cool, savvy villain is great, because it's up to the writers, not the audience, to figure out how to beat the villian, and if he's cool and savvy enough, the audience starts seeing him as the "Awesome Guy", and cheer for him to win. This sort of dynamic does NOT happen in a Tabletop game - Having the heroes get thwarted by a savvy villain is also thwarting and frustrating the 'audience'.
9. Make sure the players have a fair chance at Sense Motive (Or your system's equivalent). Although you're playing a villain, you're also the voice of the world. Roleplaying runs on suspension of disbelief, and the world is created by a fallible, inconsistant mortal. Players tend to treat new information as true, especially if it doesn't directly contradict previously-established details. What are supposed to be holes in a villian monologue turn into plugs for holes in the world. Having non-obvious dishonest characters is a recipe for frustration.

I keep seeing "If the players do it, it's fair game for enemies" tossed around. I do not believe this is so - As DM, you have more resources available. Player-Characters are Adventurers. They need to resort to unorthodox tactics to win, usually. They are not just a 'cut above' the rest of the population statistically, but also in terms of agency and alacrity. Most monsters/villians shouldn't have contingency after contingency that Adventurers might have, because they lack the experience of every false move cost them life or resources (And, they have a looser definition of "False move"). They also don't have the same risk assessment abilities. The DM also generally has much better coordination than a party (In addition to absolute control over the monsters), making PC tactics even more deadly when turned around.

High intellect =/= System Mastery, nor metaworld/mechanic knowledge. A wizard adventurer might figure out the most optimal spell selection, because he's out looking for trouble and casting almost all his spells each day - and those he doesn't cast are uncast for a reason. He also has a very bizzare sense of priorities for what spells he needs. I've seen it argued far too seriously on these boards that "Any wizard smart enough to cast high-level spells knows not to bother with evocation/enchantment, to focus on conjuration, never prohibit Transmutation, and know exactly what feats to take" - all of those are game constructs that NPCs are unaware of, and we're seeing the results and interactions of spells twice-removed from how people in the world see them.

A wizard mastermind might be able to create robust schemes that bring him ever-greater power of varying complexity and scope. He probably has the knowledge to craft life from nothingness, knows the history of the world and all sides of what happened where. He understands how the planes work and turn around each other. He has the mental agility to comprehend and control powers beyond any mere mortal. It Doesn't mean he always knows what spell or chain of spells to cast or prepare to beat a band of murderhobos crashing down his doors, and what "Turn" to cast them on. I don't think Albert Einstein would have made a great General.

johnbragg
2013-09-02, 07:50 PM
I'm going to ask more about these:
A wizard mastermind might be able to create robust schemes that bring him ever-greater power of varying complexity and scope. He probably has the knowledge to craft life from nothingness, knows the history of the world and all sides of what happened where. He understands how the planes work and turn around each other. He has the mental agility to comprehend and control powers beyond any mere mortal. It Doesn't mean he always knows what spell or chain of spells to cast or prepare to beat a band of murderhobos crashing down his doors, and what "Turn" to cast them on. I don't think Albert Einstein would have made a great General.

The problem is that the mechanics of advancement do lead one to believe that a high-level caster is also an experienced murderhobo. In most systems, Einstein would work out to several levels of Expert with an Int of 19 or 20 (dice be damned.)

Talakeal
2013-09-02, 08:36 PM
1. What do the monsters gain for using Hit And Run tactics, aside from harassing the PCs?
2. What has the party done to allow themselves to be ambushed/snuck up on? Why are they being attacked by surprise?
3. How do the enemies know the PCs have buffed and fortified an area? - This one comes across the most as a "**** Move", because it can easily be metagame knowledge.
4. Depends on the monster and terrain. Should be fair, though
5. Didn't you put a limit on buffs? I'll talk about magic instead Monsters being able to Nova when PCs have to conserve resources is an imbalance that should be taken into consideration.
6. Still being there isn't a problem. But, if they slip by it undetected, it shouldn't wait. However, bypassing a monster isn't defeating it.
7. Ehh... if there's help to call, they can call it, but it should be clear there's a chance of reinforcements.
8. This is a biggy - the Evil Overlord list creates invincible villians. In storytelling media, having a cool, savvy villain is great, because it's up to the writers, not the audience, to figure out how to beat the villian, and if he's cool and savvy enough, the audience starts seeing him as the "Awesome Guy", and cheer for him to win. This sort of dynamic does NOT happen in a Tabletop game - Having the heroes get thwarted by a savvy villain is also thwarting and frustrating the 'audience'.
9. Make sure the players have a fair chance at Sense Motive (Or your system's equivalent). Although you're playing a villain, you're also the voice of the world. Roleplaying runs on suspension of disbelief, and the world is created by a fallible, inconsistant mortal. Players tend to treat new information as true, especially if it doesn't directly contradict previously-established details. What are supposed to be holes in a villian monologue turn into plugs for holes in the world. Having non-obvious dishonest characters is a recipe for frustration.


1: Usually it is either a rogue type creature or a spell caster with access to invisibility or teleportation. It will follow the PCs until they are vulnerable (sleeping, fighting something else, crossing a chasm, etc.) and then attack. Once the party has reacted and gotten their act together it will then hide again. This isn't something I do often mind you, maybe once every 10 sessions and only when it is appropriate to what they are fighting.

2: Usually resting in enemy territory or invading an enemy stronghold which has set ambush points.

3: I only do this for really big buffs that make the PCs all but invincible. Flight, invisibility, turning an open battlefield into a choke point blender with walls of force, etc.

4: I have a player who has a standing statement that all terrain is cheating as PCs will never know the enemy's home terrain better than the enemy.

5: NPCs have the same limit on buffs as the PCs. It is usually something like I have a dragon cast shield and mage armor on themselves and then the players whine that the dragon has a higher AC than what is listed in the MM.

6 and 7 are often the same problem. The PCs sneak by the gate guards, and then when they attack the inner keep the gate guards hear the sound of the battle and then come to help.

8: There is a difference between genre savvy and genre blind.

9: Players are free to make a sense motive test at any time to tell if someone is lying, and they know this. They still never do unless I tell them to make one, and I don't do that often because when I do they then assume he is lying regardless of what the dice say.



Ok, so let me give a brief rundown of the last adventure I ran to show you what I mean:

The players are hunting for an artifact that is in the possession of an ancient dragon who is a master of divination and enchantment.

The dragon's lair is on a temple which rises and sinks beneath the waves depending on the tide.

The players enter the temple. In the front room there are a group of mind controlled guardians made up of former treasure hunters who had been captured by the dragon. There where also several invisible nixies (those are the aquatic fairies, yes?) who serve the dragon as spies and messengers and coordinate the temples defenses.

This is the text I was planning on using to describe the situation:

EVERYTHING in the dungeon was put there before hand, I did no adding or removing or moving of enemies. Everything was "by the book" and what I felt was a logical reaction to the player's actions.

"You are blocked by a large group of warriors. They are a desperate lot, being made up of many different cultures and even species, and they wear the ragged uniforms of numerous different organizations and armies. Yet, despite their ragged and varied looks, they move in perfect unison*, fighting together with almost mechanical precision. You also hear a feint whispering sound and the fluttering of tiny wings in the shadowy corners of the room, but whenever you turn to look you see nothing."

* At this point in the description I was told "Can you shut up and just let us kill stuff?" And so I did, the party never grasping that they could free the soldiers from mind control and gain an ally or thinking to look for the nixies.


The party then decides to travel down to the next level, which is half flooded. They are attacked by a group of six aboleths. Rather than fight them the party casts a part water spell and the aboleths skulk at the edge of the water and follow the PCs.

Next room is an almost identical situation. I tell the PCs they might want to deal with the aboleths as now there are two groups following them, the PCs ignore me.

The next room a group of sahaugin attack the PCs. There are three doors leaving the room, two leading deeper into the temple. The mage uses walls of stone to trap the Sahuagin leaving only a one meter wide gap which they can squeeze through (and be cut down) one at a time. The sahuagin i nstead elect to go back the way they came and come at the party from the other direction.

The central complex of the temple is home to a giant octopus, four damned crabs, and a water elemental. The party tries using the same part water trick and get to the middle of the room, but then the water elemental dispels the part water effect. The PCs are now fighting one elemental, one octopus, four crabs, 12 aboleths. A few round later the Sahuagin, who were still making their way to the room the PCs trapped them out of, make their way into the central chamber and join it.

The party nearly dies to this fight as they are fighting four rooms worth of monsters at once, but they do triumph, although they burn through their entire stock of consumables to do so.

There are now several paths to take.

The PCs go through one room, which has a riddle inscribed on the wall. If the PCs can answer it they will get a bonus treasure. The riddle is "What grows taller once you take the head off?" The PCs are stumped. When they give up I tell them the answer (a pillow) and am told I cheated because pillows are not alive and therefore do not "grow".

The PCs enter another chamber and find a channel of water through the middle. It is dark and they do not attempt to see what is in the water. Instead they send the monk (everyone else is either in heavy armor or doesn't know how to swim) to swim across and tie a rope. Half way across the water the monk is attacked by sharks and nearly killed.

The players find an ancient crypt guarded by a powerful ghost. The mage eventually casts control undead on the ghost and the ghost stops fighting. The PCs loot the crypt and move on.

The players encounter another group of dominated treasure hunters. The mage tells me he is going to have the ghost kill them. I say the ghost didn't follow you. The mage players tells me I am being a jerk and that should have been assumed. I say maybe so, but the ghost still didn't follow you. He says I command the ghost to come to me now. I say nothing happens. (The ghost is both out of earshot and incapable of traveling more than 100 yards from its body which is buried in the crypt). They win the fight easily even without the ghost. After the fight the mage is mad at me for "screwing him out of his awesome pet" and refuses to go back to see WHY it didn't come when called.

The PCs come into a chamber with a large pool in the middle. There are several sea serpents within. The PCs bypass the pool.

The players find the dragon's hoard. The artifact is resting in the middle of the horde. The dragon is hidden in an alcove above the hoard (the players don't have a good enough passive perception skill to spot it, and no one bothers searching for it) watching them, ready to pounce once they touch the artifact. Instead the PCs decide to loot the dragon's hoard, and the dragon decides to let them.

I tell the players it will take quite a while to loot the hoard. The party decides to go for it. After a few minutes I tell them the tide is starting to come back in and water is filling the room. The PCs keep looting until they can't carry anymore, and are now too encumbered to walk quickly, let alone swim.

The PCs decide to grab the artifact and leave. Once they are out of the room the dragon follows.

The tide has risen so that the pool the sea serpents were in has now over flowed and filled the room, releasing the sea serpents. The PCs engage the sea serpents and then the dragon attacks. The party, already down a lot of resources from the earlier encounter, can't fight both enemies at once.

The wizard decides to teleport the party out. The artifact (which is intelligent) is unwilling and remains behind.

The party has, at this point, failed their primary objective, and didn't make very much money off the encounter as they spent almost as much on consumables as they took from the hoard.

The players are all furious and tell me that I either cheated or intentionally went out of my way to screw them over by playing every enemy in the dungeon as a complete jerk.

So what do you think? How many of those encounters were me being a jackass vs. playing it straight?

johnbragg
2013-09-02, 09:08 PM
* At this point in the description I was told "Can you shut up and just let us kill stuff?"

The only quibble I have is you probably should have said, sure, and then when important tactical information comes back to bite you in the rear end, you'll whine and cry about me cheating.

The bigger problem is that you and your group of players are a bad match. I think you have three basic options:

1. Run the kind of campaign they want. They get planeshifted to Pandemurderhobonium by a half-fiendish half-dragon half-drow Uberslaad vampire with monk levels and placed in a tournament because purple taco poems defenestrate easily, and they get to fight random creatures advanced with classes and templates for encounter-appropriate rewards, in terrain equally unfamiliar to both. After they get bored slaughtering creatures and monsters, have them fight some NPC parties in a dungeon setting. If they're okay with the Murderdome theme, maybe set up some contests where one party member gets some NPC help and fights the rest of the party.

2. Talk to the players and have them decide which of them should take over the campaign and let you be a PC and enjoy the game.

3. Find a different group of players. I don't know if that's feasible.

Winds
2013-09-02, 09:25 PM
* At this point in the description I was told "Can you shut up and just let us kill stuff?" And so I did, the party never grasping that they could free the soldiers from mind control and gain an ally or thinking to look for the nixies.


Standing rule: Even if it's just description, you do not interrupt the DM. Bad form, and it's incredibly self-destructive to skip that sort of thing.



The party then decides to travel down to the next level, which is half flooded. They are attacked by a group of six aboleths. Rather than fight them the party casts a part water spell and the aboleths skulk at the edge of the water and follow the PCs.

Next room is an almost identical situation. I tell the PCs they might want to deal with the aboleths as now there are two groups following them, the PCs ignore me.


These two showcase the entire problem. They seem to think that ignoring an encounter will mean that encounter is cancelled...even though you've given evidence to the contrary.


The party nearly dies to this fight as they are fighting four rooms worth of monsters at once, but they do triumph, although they burn through their entire stock of consumables to do so.

I've never seen a group make this kind of mistake more than once. This, as you have said, is not the first time.



The PCs go through one room, which has a riddle inscribed on the wall. If the PCs can answer it they will get a bonus treasure. The riddle is "What grows taller once you take the head off?" The PCs are stumped. When they give up I tell them the answer (a pillow) and am told I cheated because pillows are not alive and therefore do not "grow".

I don't care for riddles, as it's too easy to be right for the wrong reasons. (Compare a lot of puzzles from the Sunday comics in a newspaper-I never get their answer, but that doesn't mean my answer wouldn't work.) That aside, an odd solution isn't cheating. Nothing in the riddle specified living things.


After the fight the mage is mad at me for "screwing him out of his awesome pet" and refuses to go back to see WHY it didn't come when called.


If you won't investigate...you shouldn't complain. (Besides, most of the genre has it that ghosts are bound to their corpse, or where they died.)



Instead the PCs decide to loot the dragon's hoard, and the dragon decides to let them.

I tell the players it will take quite a while to loot the hoard. The party decides to go for it. After a few minutes I tell them the tide is starting to come back in and water is filling the room. The PCs keep looting until they can't carry anymore, and are now too encumbered to walk quickly, let alone swim.

There's really no excuse for this. Too dumb to live, three times over.




The players are all furious and tell me that I either cheated or intentionally went out of my way to screw them over by playing every enemy in the dungeon as a complete jerk.

So what do you think? How many of those encounters were me being a jackass vs. playing it straight?



As noted before, I wouldn't think this kind of thing to be the only MO we ever dealt with. But when you're talking a dragon of any age above teenager, I assume they use their spellcasting and long life translates into some impressive defenses. (Come on, dragons quite literally make a living out of doing so...)

Tengu_temp
2013-09-02, 09:28 PM
So... Why are you still playing with those people, after over 9000 threads showing how horrible and annoying players they are?

I'd hint at why the ghost didn't follow the wizard, rather than saying "it simply doesn't follow you", which sounds too much like "it happens because I say so". Other than that, these fools brought it all on themselves for ignoring obvious hints, thinking enemies disappear as soon as you leave the room where they are, interrupting you in the middle of an important and interesting description and acting like complete morons (you find a dragon's hoard without the dragon in sight and you don't search the room for anything suspicious? Seriously?).


Standing rule: Even if it's just description, you do not interrupt the DM. Bad form, and it's incredibly self-destructive to skip that sort of thing.

Yeah, seriously. What kind of rude **** does that? When anyone else on the table is describing, you don't interrupt them.

Talakeal
2013-09-02, 09:42 PM
1. Run the kind of campaign they want. They get planeshifted to Pandemurderhobonium by a half-fiendish half-dragon half-drow Uberslaad vampire with monk levels and placed in a tournament because purple taco poems defenestrate easily, and they get to fight random creatures advanced with classes and templates for encounter-appropriate rewards, in terrain equally unfamiliar to both. After they get bored slaughtering creatures and monsters, have them fight some NPC parties in a dungeon setting. If they're okay with the Murderdome theme, maybe set up some contests where one party member gets some NPC help and fights the rest of the party.


ROFLMAO. You win the thread good sir, and I may just take you up on that advice :)

Fiery Diamond
2013-09-02, 10:36 PM
That sounds like an awesome session to me, not one they should have complained about. They brought that on themselves, and it made for an entertaining story.

johnbragg
2013-09-02, 10:36 PM
ROFLMAO. You win the thread good sir, and I may just take you up on that advice :)

You need to have an out-of-game conversation with the group. Tell them that

OPTION A: They can take a second crack at the water-temple-artifact quest. They've put a serious dent in the monsters in the temple (I think, anyway). The dragon will be working to replace them, but that takes time. (Assuming that the dragon is summoning and binding monsters into the temple--tell the players that they should expect that from its Monster Manual stat block if it's casting 6th and 7th level spells).

OPTION B: Screw the artifact quest and get teleported by arbitrarily powerful Chaotic Neutral outsiders to Murderdomeworld to fight things and take their stuff. Have a Murderdomeworld creature ready for them to fight.

EDIT: And yes, it does sound like an awesome session.

Mr Beer
2013-09-02, 10:44 PM
Standing rule: Even if it's just description, you do not interrupt the DM. Bad form, and it's incredibly self-destructive to skip that sort of thing.

I had a player interrupt me in an abrupt and rude fashion once, mid description of the surroundings (they were in a seedy pub in a Drow city).

As requested, I immediately ceased describing what was going on - that was the gist of what he demanded - and continued the game. Then 5 minutes later I told him that his purse was missing.

Him: What? How!

Me: A thief stole it.

Him: WTF!? Why didn't I get a roll to detect it happening?

Me: You refused to receive information on your local environment. So you couldn't notice it.

Him: This is BS!

Me: *shrug* That's what happens.

He was pretty pissed off - the thief was long gone and when he started breaking up the tavern in anger a bunch of high powered Drow came out of the woodwork - but he didn't do it again.

Cuaqchi
2013-09-02, 10:49 PM
I must agree with everything Winds said. The riddle was poorly conceived; since, it is the characters - not the players - who actually need to solve it. Maybe institute some manner of Int/Wis check that players can do for their characters to get the solution; and, I say both Int and Wis because riddles are not straight forward logic puzzles but more involved matters of lateral thinking.

But, beyond that the very fact they survived should be reward enough for such idiotic murderhobos. I know one of my own groups hates my illusions specifically because I use them as an intelligent creature capable of casting such spells would do... Had one Aboleth use a programmed illusion of the waters emptying from his central chamber when they proceeded too far - not a TPK threat since half the party could breathe underwater - but interesting to see the reaction as the other half suddenly started to drown on air. :smallbiggrin:

tasw
2013-09-02, 10:51 PM
This is the only tactic I would take issue with. As a DM, I'd rather reward players' careful preparations than play my monsters as intelligently as possible. It can be exceedingly frustrating to spend all those resources (even if they're just spells that will replenish after you rest) and then find that it was a total waste.

totally disagree. punish the 10 minute work day remorselessly. When the PC's try to use it beat them over the head with the fact that this is a world dangerous enough to need adventurers.

if your players nova all their spells on buffs have the enemies run for the hills. They arent morons. They are members of a violent race who comes into combat with other races often. Unless their INT is in the retard level have them properly deal with buff tastic casters. Which is to run like hell for a few rounds then come back and brutally drub the dumbass for nova'ing buffs that ran out.

Talakeal
2013-09-02, 10:54 PM
I must agree with everything Winds said. The riddle was poorly conceived; since, it is the characters - not the players - who actually need to solve it. Maybe institute some manner of Int/Wis check that players can do for their characters to get the solution; and, I say both Int and Wis because riddles are not straight forward logic puzzles but more involved matters of lateral thinking.


I did. They could have solved the riddle in or out of character. They failed the test however.

androkguz
2013-09-02, 11:15 PM
I am currently testing this idea: guess villain.

I have a bunch of friends that play role games and less than half of them fit at a given party table. So what I am gonna do in the future with my new group to take off from me completely the responsibility of being a "jerk" and actually being very fair is this:
I will bring a friend to each session with my current group. That friend (who is not a regular) gets to role play the bad guys. All of them or half of them. I tell him everything they can do and how they react and give him objectives. Now the random thugs in the alley can use smart tactics or just run away or surprise me.



If I wasn't doing that then I would very much make sure that any kind of "smart tactic" that I plan to use gets foreshadowed or doesn't screw my PCs up. I tell them that a dragon has been disappearing in plain sight so when he casts invisibility it is totally their fault for not paying attention. People in taverns should have conversations about how clever mind flayers are (with examples) before the PCs face them.
If it is a world with clever tactics that you want, then you have to get the message across before the tactics show up.


But I believe that your players may not be looking for that. You can have a great time by simply putting them against the elements or low intelligence monsters. Put the focus on something other than the tactics, such as the story or the scenery or something.

Scow2
2013-09-02, 11:36 PM
totally disagree. punish the 10 minute work day remorselessly. When the PC's try to use it beat them over the head with the fact that this is a world dangerous enough to need adventurers.

if your players nova all their spells on buffs have the enemies run for the hills. They arent morons. They are members of a violent race who comes into combat with other races often. Unless their INT is in the retard level have them properly deal with buff tastic casters. Which is to run like hell for a few rounds then come back and brutally drub the dumbass for nova'ing buffs that ran out.
Except what you describe does nothing to change the 10 Minute Adventuring Day - all it does is mean they don't do anything this day. Also, you're the only one bringing up Nova casting at all. Having any attempt the players make to prepare for a battle would be extremely frustrating. Besides - how do the monsters even know the party's buffed? Unless they have Detect Magic and/or several ranks in spellcraft (Or the buffs are incredibly obvious), they wouldn't have a clue what they were getting into. Besides - they still (mistakenly) believe they have numbers and other advantages on their side.

Something that really sucks about PC/NPC imbalance in 3.5 is that Monsters can retreat freely because they act on simplified initiatives (And tend to not actually care about individual survival), while it's nearly impossible for player characters to organize and pull off without a wizard casting Teleport - unless they can all escape on the same initiative count, with none of them delaying to give enemies free swings, retreat for player characters is a terrible option, and almost always better to try and fight it through and hope to get lucky.

Also - The DM has knowledge that colors the awareness of the NPCs. The NPCs really shouldn't be aware of just how bad the **** they're getting into (Either by falling into an ambush, or underestimating the power of the characters), but the DM is fully aware. Once you're aware that the players have rigged a section of the dungeon they have control over to kill bad guys (Such as, say, a corridor narrow enough to blast a Lightning Bolt down, or a room large enough to Fireball... or hit with an abjuration spell that screws over anyone that tries to enter it, you can't unsee it, and start thinking "Are my monsters able to recognize and stay out of the deathtrap", even if the DM wasn't even seeing it as a deathtrap before.

You can see this by comparing how often PCs blunder into ambushes or try taking on monsters far above their pay grade: Even if they acknowledge the risk of danger, they usually underestimate it or overestimate their own abilities and charge in anyway, with token acknowledgement of the chance of a threat. The true test of the viability of a telegraphed ambush is how well it holds up to a frontal attack.

Rhynn
2013-09-03, 01:18 AM
The players are all furious and tell me that I either cheated or intentionally went out of my way to screw them over by playing every enemy in the dungeon as a complete jerk.

So what do you think? How many of those encounters were me being a jackass vs. playing it straight?

That sounded like an awesome adventure I would have loved to play in, and I know my players would have enjoyed it, too (I might steal some elements). Your players were intentionally, obnoxiously oblivious, even when you gave them direct advice, and then acted petulant when their actions had obvious consequences. ("Oh we'll just leave enemies at our back, that's not dangerous!")

I would have run things pretty much the same way. Some of the problems were subtle (the artifact being intelligent and unwilling) but still sensible, and a good adventure at such obviously high level needs to have tricky parts like that. The encounters themselves seemed, frankly, standard to me, but then I've used submerged hydras and other nasty tricks.

Scow2: Talakeal keeps repeating that by "buffed" he means very obvious and overpowering things: invisibility (presumably greater), flight, etc. His players are basically complaining that monsters won't stick around to fight invisible enemies or enemies they can't even reach to hurt (or won't agree to come at the PCs one at a time).

Raine_Sage
2013-09-03, 02:30 AM
I think part of the frustration about buffs could be explained by, if the situations are reversed, being unable to use the same tactics as the enemies in some cases.

For example you mentioned invisible Nixies, now I think we can all agree by now your players are little ****s and the guy who told you to shut up while you were trying to explain the situation pretty much asked for whatever he got, but lets pretend he wasn't an ******* for a moment and actually paid attention.

How would you have responded if all the PCs went "I notice there are invisible enemies in the room and nope the **** out of here". It would be a pretty short adventure right? You at least expect them to make a token gesture of trying to fight or make visible their foes, retreat being an option reserved for when they're clearly losing.

You don't say when you have your monsters retreat but if it's before they suffer any casualties at all I could see players being miffed about that. If they're retreating after 2 or 3 have already dropped well... I guess it depends on the size of the mob. A general rule of thumb I use is retreat is only considered once the enemy has been reduced to half its original strength. Be it in hit points (in the case of one or two enemies) or in numbers (in the case of larger mobs). That way players still feel they accomplished something in the fight, and if they run into the enemies later it's not nearly so overwhelming.

It sounds like a fun adventure, and if you ever decided to do an e-game I wouldn't mind giving you a shot as DM. Sorry your old group was so bad.

kamikasei
2013-09-03, 05:31 AM
You used a riddle. That makes us sworn enemies and we must duel somewhere dramatic, possibly with lava in the background.

That aside:

The "can't teleport with an unwilling intelligent item" thing strikes me as obnoxious. Did they know it was intelligent? Did they have a reasonable opportunity to check? Would they have realized the implications if they had checked? For players like you're describing, it'd be a good idea to spell out some things that you might prefer to leave to them to figure out. With the ghost thing, too, and with the interrupted description of the opening room, you should probably have given them more information (even if they complained of being bored by it) so that your actions wouldn't seem arbitrary and unfair. As is, it sounds like a self-reinforcing situation where they don't pay attention to what you tell them because it feels to them like you're just thwarting them by fiat.

More generally, the adventure sounds fine in and of itself but a terrible fit for the group you've got. They seem like fools and jerks, but you also seem unable to adapt to what they want from a game. (Not that I entirely blame you - it sounds like a situation where meeting them halfway will just amount to you conceding and them being emboldened by it, rinse and repeat.)

Black Jester
2013-09-03, 05:37 AM
My gut reaction is basically "A player who thinks he is entitled to win just because he is there, deserves nothing but seeing his character defeated and humiliated." And while that's probably too harsh, it's unfortunately true anyway.
It is also not that helpful I fear, as petty revenge as amusing and justified it may be is usually not that helpful to actually solve any conflicts.

The bigger issue however is the horrible concept that the GM is somehow obligated to Custom-made the campaign specifically for the players or that the players are entitled to be entertained by the GM. This is a poisonous position that should be stomped down immediately and brutally whenever it rears its ugly head.

Under almost all circumstances, players are not customers who can expect some sort of service. They are not doing the GM any favor for playing in their game. They are not doing anyone a favor by complaining about things. In an RPG, the players are not the audience, they are supposed to actively and constructively contribute to the story. This is not a one way relationship where the player is just a consumer of an offered product. They are supposed to be an active part of the game, and the whole 'Here we are now, entertain us' mentality can easily turn running a game from a pleasure to a chore. Player passivity and laziness are not an alternative play style; they are annoying quirks at best.
Or, to summarize: The Gamemaster is by no means obligated to entertain the players. He is more or less obligated to make a good story and to the game as a whole but so is everybody else.

johnbragg
2013-09-03, 06:25 AM
Under almost all circumstances, players are not customers who can expect some sort of service. They are not doing the GM any favor for playing in their game. ... .This is not a one way relationship where the player is just a consumer of an offered product. ...

I think this is the wrong attitude to take. "You players don't like my campaign because you're lousy players", even if true, is a self-defeating attitude.


Player passivity and laziness are not an alternative play style; they are annoying quirks at best.

No, monsters-show-up-and-we-kill-them is a play style. We may think it's a stupid, lazy, passive play style but it's a style. It even has a name, "I waste it with my crossbow," from Knights of the Dinner Table.


Or, to summarize: The Gamemaster is by no means obligated to entertain the players. He is more or less obligated to make a good story and to the game as a whole but so is everybody else.

The players also aren't obligated to keep playing. This is a little like an incompatible relationship--either the relationship has to end, or one party has to completely change their approach to the relationship. YElling at the other side to change isn't going to accomplish much.

I suppose there's an approach of gradually having monsters be more tactically savvy over time, acclimating the players to it, but it seems too late for that--by the time players are casting teleport and wasting aboleths and defeating dragons, the characters' personas and patterns are set.

Rhynn
2013-09-03, 06:34 AM
No, monsters-show-up-and-we-kill-them is a play style. We may think it's a stupid, lazy, passive play style but it's a style. It even has a name, "I waste it with my crossbow," from Knights of the Dinner Table.

That seems like a misnomer, given how proactive the Knights are in finding things to waste with crossbows! (And +12 Hackmasters.)

Amphetryon
2013-09-03, 07:05 AM
I think part of the frustration about buffs could be explained by, if the situations are reversed, being unable to use the same tactics as the enemies in some cases.

For example you mentioned invisible Nixies, now I think we can all agree by now your players are little ****s and the guy who told you to shut up while you were trying to explain the situation pretty much asked for whatever he got, but lets pretend he wasn't an ******* for a moment and actually paid attention.

How would you have responded if all the PCs went "I notice there are invisible enemies in the room and nope the **** out of here". It would be a pretty short adventure right? You at least expect them to make a token gesture of trying to fight or make visible their foes, retreat being an option reserved for when they're clearly losing.

You don't say when you have your monsters retreat but if it's before they suffer any casualties at all I could see players being miffed about that. If they're retreating after 2 or 3 have already dropped well... I guess it depends on the size of the mob. A general rule of thumb I use is retreat is only considered once the enemy has been reduced to half its original strength. Be it in hit points (in the case of one or two enemies) or in numbers (in the case of larger mobs). That way players still feel they accomplished something in the fight, and if they run into the enemies later it's not nearly so overwhelming.

It sounds like a fun adventure, and if you ever decided to do an e-game I wouldn't mind giving you a shot as DM. Sorry your old group was so bad.
From the evidence so far, I'd guess Talakeal's reaction to having the PCs retreat in the face of invisible Nixies would be to have them gather at some future point in the dungeon (using the term in its broadest game sense) and forcing the PCs to fight them again elsewhere, probably with additional buffs and/or reinforcements. The same would appear to be the case if the PCs were to find themselves doing poorly and managed a retreat. That's not intended as an indictment, just an observation.

However, it highlights a PC/NPC imbalance that Scow2 hinted at before: as I understand things, if the monsters in Talakeal's game retreat, they get to choose the time and place where they will attack the PCs again, with that "attack the PCs again" part being assured; conversely, if the PCs in Talakeal's game retreat, the monsters get to choose the time and place where they will attack the PCs again, with that "attack the PCs again" part being assured. In other words, the monsters in this campaign, as described, always have the option and ability to engage the PCs when it's most advantageous for the monsters to do so. This is thanks in no small part to the fact that as DM, Talakeal has a significant information flow advantage over the PCs, which he apparently believes he should use as best he can.

Arsamit
2013-09-03, 07:37 AM
I just read the thread... your group needs some "guide" from the movie director...

I.e.: I have the same GMing stile as you, play monsters and bad guys to the best of their abilities.

So i made a dungeon pyramid on dark sun 2nd ed, once you enter 1st lvl of the dungeon no way out (entrance was through a magic teleport).

First lvl has plenty of rooms but on the whole lvl there are just a zombie lord (Defiler lvl 6, Int 15-18), a few traps (no thief on the party, no cleric, no wizards...) and around 100 zombies.

All my players are lvl 6, bard, fighter, 2 gladiators, psionic

As you may know, zombie lords can "see" through his zombies, and across millennia of adventurers trying to kill him but failing he gathered some curded items (3) that has spread through the dungeon for invaders dumb enough to pick them up and use them without any care.

Resulting on... 3 cursed, all severely wounded due to traps, and scattered due to one of the cursed items (the mul gladiator with a cursed sword is quite a threat)

Question is... plan of the zombie lord is "cheating"??
I would answer no... But your players surely would answer yes.

Just grab them and tell to them (just as i did in the beggining)

"Nothing here is set at random, everything is as it is for a reason"

Amphetryon
2013-09-03, 08:02 AM
I just read the thread... your group needs some "guide" from the movie director...

I.e.: I have the same GMing stile as you, play monsters and bad guys to the best of their abilities.

So i made a dungeon pyramid on dark sun 2nd ed, once you enter 1st lvl of the dungeon no way out (entrance was through a magic teleport).

First lvl has plenty of rooms but on the whole lvl there are just a zombie lord (Defiler lvl 6, Int 15-18), a few traps (no thief on the party, no cleric, no wizards...) and around 100 zombies.

All my players are lvl 6, bard, fighter, 2 gladiators, psionic

As you may know, zombie lords can "see" through his zombies, and across millennia of adventurers trying to kill him but failing he gathered some curded items (3) that has spread through the dungeon for invaders dumb enough to pick them up and use them without any care.

Resulting on... 3 cursed, all severely wounded due to traps, and scattered due to one of the cursed items (the mul gladiator with a cursed sword is quite a threat)

Question is... plan of the zombie lord is "cheating"??
I would answer no... But your players surely would answer yes.

Just grab them and tell to them (just as i did in the beggining)

"Nothing here is set at random, everything is as it is for a reason"
Nothing there is set for them to pick up, either (since they have no way of detecting a cursed item, RAW, at that level), and nothing there is viable for them to interact with, given the number of traps sans party trapfinder and given every interaction with the enemy increases the enemy's knowledge of them, their tactics, and capabilities in a way that is tipped significantly toward the Zombie Lord.

From here, it looks like you wanted to win D&D; I hope you succeeded.

Arsamit
2013-09-03, 08:25 AM
Nothing there is set for them to pick up, either (since they have no way of detecting a cursed item, RAW, at that level), and nothing there is viable for them to interact with, given the number of traps sans party trapfinder and given every interaction with the enemy increases the enemy's knowledge of them, their tactics, and capabilities in a way that is tipped significantly toward the Zombie Lord.

From here, it looks like you wanted to win D&D; I hope you succeeded.

No of course... they dont have to pick up the items (i never made them to)... they just rushed to pick them up even through a room full of traps

adventure was set before character generation.

1 zombie lord that has 6hd and arround 100 zombies scatered in a dungeon are no threat to 5-8, 6 lvl adventurers (In dark sun!! all of them have stats over 20, wild talents (more than one many of them).... the mul has 22 strength for example)

Greed is the enemy, thats main strategy of the zombie lord... (puting an open chest filled with copers behind a trap) you can fall on that once... but more is just insane, and thats the point.

and btw... what do i win? what i want is players to realize that they are being set by someone, never going to push enough to kill them (if there is a point where things are pretty bad there wont be more traps and eventually they will win of course)

But thats not the point... point is:

This should be a chalenge beaten with inteligence... not slashing the zombie lord to death... wich will eventually happen in a round when they find him (desintegrated by the psionic or slashed to death by just one of the gladiators)

Amphetryon
2013-09-03, 08:44 AM
No of course... they dont have to pick up the items (i never made them to)... they just rushed to pick them up even through a room full of traps

adventure was set before character generation.

1 zombie lord that has 6hd and arround 100 zombies scatered in a dungeon are no threat to 5-8, 6 lvl adventurers (In dark sun!! all of them have stats over 20, wild talents (more than one many of them).... the mul has 22 strength for example)

Greed is the enemy, thats main strategy of the zombie lord... (puting an open chest filled with copers behind a trap) you can fall on that once... but more is just insane, and thats the point.

and btw... what do i win? what i want is players to realize that they are being set by someone, never going to push enough to kill them (if there is a point where things are pretty bad there wont be more traps and eventually they will win of course)

But thats not the point... point is:

This should be a chalenge beaten with inteligence... not slashing the zombie lord to death... wich will eventually happen in a round when they find him (desintegrated by the psionic or slashed to death by just one of the gladiators)
Picking up NONE of the treasure would have been the "intelligent" course of action in that game. . . presuming they knew heading in that several items were cursed. Consistently hiding from all of the Zombies until they got to the Zombie Lord (and until said Zombie Lord was alone) would have also been the "intelligent" course of action in that game. From what you've written above - and I acknowledge that you've certainly only given us a thumbnail sketch of the adventure - that's the best option the PCs had, and perhaps the only one they could have used to get through with no casualties or curses.

"Winning D&D" is a mindset certain Players (and the DM is a Player, as well) have that makes either steamrolling all the folks who appear from the other side of the DM screen the objective. Given the setup you described, that appeared, from here, to be the objective in mind.

Arsamit
2013-09-03, 08:56 AM
Picking up NONE of the treasure would have been the "intelligent" course of action in that game. . . presuming they knew heading in that several items were cursed. Consistently hiding from all of the Zombies until they got to the Zombie Lord (and until said Zombie Lord was alone) would have also been the "intelligent" course of action in that game. From what you've written above - and I acknowledge that you've certainly only given us a thumbnail sketch of the adventure - that's the best option the PCs had, and perhaps the only one they could have used to get through with no casualties or curses.

"Winning D&D" is a mindset certain Players (and the DM is a Player, as well) have that makes either steamrolling all the folks who appear from the other side of the DM screen the objective. Given the setup you described, that appeared, from here, to be the objective in mind.

No way, i dont agree, steamrolling the players is never "wining"

Of course i didnt describe the adventure... but all the items had a "BAD" look from the beggining.

About tacticts zombie lord can learn.... do you know hom many of the players fought each combat against the zombies? Just one of the gladiators killed 6 in 2 rounds, so just one made ALL the fights. What can zombie lord learn? he learned that he should make a trip to another plane more friendly...

Intelligent curse of action is NOT trigering all the traps just because you regenerate due to high CON

Intelligent curse of action is asking WHY are things happening, is this inhabited?? i clearly stated that it was, SOMEONE INTELIGENT is on that level (That was stated at the very entrance)

And so on... is that cheating? no, i believe that is "teaching to think"

skyth
2013-09-03, 09:13 AM
Some things in the description of the dragon adventure, etc bother me.

First off, you mention the players being allowed Sense Motive if they want to. Sense Motive should be a passive skill, not an active skill...And should be always rolled. Do you always have NPC's roll sense motive against PC's when they try to bluff, etc? The same should be said. I also wonder if you asked the PC's for a spot roll to notice the invisible critters.

Another thing is that all your monsters seem to operate under a hive mind and are all extremely organized. When going against evil enemies, there should be plenty that would be happy if the PC's take care of their rivals. Are there every any factions among the enemies that the PC's could exploit, or are all your monsters a hive mind that always instictively know what all the other monsters are doing and always work together and rush to help them? Just by being a DM, you have an advantage this way.

Another one is that a high level dragon was hard to see? The size modifiers alone would make almost any hide check almost impossible, and most dragons don't take ranks in hide if memory serves ;)

The intelligent item not going along? Any ways the characters (especially the mage casting the spell) would know that it wouldn't go along? The characters know more about the world and how it works than the PC's do.

One last thing, in general, not specific to the encounter...I was thinking about the hydra that splits up attacks and damages everyone versus your critters that focus fire on one player until he drops. One thing to consider is that the player who's character is focus fired down now can no longer play. He's just sitting there as a spectator twiddling his thumbs. This can be frustrating, especially if you are taken down in the first round before you act and don't get to play with your toys. The DM doesn't have this issue as if one monster is dropped before he does something, the DM has lots more to play with.

Amphetryon
2013-09-03, 09:32 AM
No way, i dont agree, steamrolling the players is never "wining"

Of course i didnt describe the adventure... but all the items had a "BAD" look from the beggining.

About tacticts zombie lord can learn.... do you know hom many of the players fought each combat against the zombies? Just one of the gladiators killed 6 in 2 rounds, so just one made ALL the fights. What can zombie lord learn? he learned that he should make a trip to another plane more friendly...

Intelligent curse of action is NOT trigering all the traps just because you regenerate due to high CON

Intelligent curse of action is asking WHY are things happening, is this inhabited?? i clearly stated that it was, SOMEONE INTELIGENT is on that level (That was stated at the very entrance)

And so on... is that cheating? no, i believe that is "teaching to think"
As you and I both indicated, I was commenting on the facts as presented originally, which made no mention of which of the PCs were killing how many Zombies at what rate or difficulty. What the Zombie Lord learned in the example you give (assuming that Plane Shifting in some form was not viable, since it was apparently a "no way out" dungeon for the PCs) was which of the PCs should get the most of his attention.

If "all" of the items had "a bad look about them," then the intelligent thing to do is pick up NONE of the treasure the dungeon provides, and hope that you'll get sufficient recompense later. This is a particularly Gygaxian approach to things, which is sometimes portrayed as "guess what the DM is thinking."

"Not triggering all the traps" is a fine goal, but it relies either on having a trapfinder in the party (which, from your original indication, they lacked) or having phenomenal luck in avoiding the traps they could not find, or on not interacting with the dungeon. If, instead, it relies on the Players picking up particular cues the DM provides in description in order to find the traps that, in Character, they had no means of finding, then you're advocating using metagame knowledge in order to survive the dungeon. Some groups are fine with that; some groups consider it anathema.

And, if the goal you've agreed upon at the onset of your game is "this is a teaching tool," then "teaching them to think" (specifically, teaching them to think along the same lines as the DM) is great, or at least fine. If that's not the goal you've all agreed upon at the onset of the game. . . then folks are working at cross purposes.

Rhynn
2013-09-03, 10:30 AM
However, it highlights a PC/NPC imbalance that Scow2 hinted at before: as I understand things, if the monsters in Talakeal's game retreat, they get to choose the time and place where they will attack the PCs again, with that "attack the PCs again" part being assured; conversely, if the PCs in Talakeal's game retreat, the monsters get to choose the time and place where they will attack the PCs again, with that "attack the PCs again" part being assured. In other words, the monsters in this campaign, as described, always have the option and ability to engage the PCs when it's most advantageous for the monsters to do so. This is thanks in no small part to the fact that as DM, Talakeal has a significant information flow advantage over the PCs, which he apparently believes he should use as best he can.

That's a pretty wild assumption. What indication is there that Talakeal's monsters cease to exist when they retreat? The PCs never seem to attempt to follow up and engage them. They could be at a great advantage if they did, unless the monsters happen to be retreating into a set ambush or trap (an age-old and perfectly standard DM tactic).

The PCs never appear to make the slightest attempt to get any real tactical advantage ("I cast spells" not withstanding). That's pretty weak. Whatever the game, my players know never to go for a fair or straight-up fight, and will use tricks, deceptions, and the like to get an advantage. (It's not like figuring out whether the terrain can be used to your advantage is hard: ask the DM questions.)


Another one is that a high level dragon was hard to see? The size modifiers alone would make almost any hide check almost impossible, and most dragons don't take ranks in hide if memory serves ;)

1. Total Cover/Concealment.

2. Invisibility.

That sure was a puzzle, there...

Amphetryon
2013-09-03, 10:48 AM
That's a pretty wild assumption. What indication is there that Talakeal's monsters cease to exist when they retreat? The PCs never seem to attempt to follow up and engage them. They could be at a great advantage if they did, unless the monsters happen to be retreating into a set ambush or trap (an age-old and perfectly standard DM tactic).

The PCs never appear to make the slightest attempt to get any real tactical advantage ("I cast spells" not withstanding). That's pretty weak. Whatever the game, my players know never to go for a fair or straight-up fight, and will use tricks, deceptions, and the like to get an advantage. (It's not like figuring out whether the terrain can be used to your advantage is hard: ask the DM questions.)

Where did I say that the monsters cease to exist when they retreat? They are, of course, retreating in the dungeon that they know more thoroughly than the PCs do, in all likelihood (unless I missed a specific indicator to the contrary). They are also, from what I can gather from Talakeal's multiple examples, retreating toward reinforcements (which the PCs do not have, except as Summons) and a more difficult encounter. Following the retreating monsters is not, from my reading, a tactically or strategically sound choice, as it will, at best, lead to another immediate encounter in unfamiliar terrain, potentially with additional adversaries who have expended less resources than the PCs have, including renewable ones like HP.

Their retreat also indicates to many a seasoned D&D Player, as well as many a n00b, that the PCs have, in fact, defeated the encounter by forcing the retreat.

Scow2
2013-09-03, 12:18 PM
Some things in the description of the dragon adventure, etc bother me.

First off, you mention the players being allowed Sense Motive if they want to. Sense Motive should be a passive skill, not an active skill...And should be always rolled. Do you always have NPC's roll sense motive against PC's when they try to bluff, etc? The same should be said. I also wonder if you asked the PC's for a spot roll to notice the invisible critters.I think he would - and having skills be non-passive is a viable, but probably frustrating, way to handle the system - Just like someone doesn't roll Move Silently just to walk or run down a corridor at penalties when they're not trying to be quiet, it's perfectly acceptable for someone to not make a Perception Check if they're not actively looking for something. However, "Make a Spot check" does work for situations where there's something that might be obvious at first glance, but also easy to overlook. Sense Motive can be used in a similar way - if something prods your suspicion, you ask for a Sense Motive Check.


Another thing is that all your monsters seem to operate under a hive mind and are all extremely organized. When going against evil enemies, there should be plenty that would be happy if the PC's take care of their rivals. Are there every any factions among the enemies that the PC's could exploit, or are all your monsters a hive mind that always instictively know what all the other monsters are doing and always work together and rush to help them? Just by being a DM, you have an advantage this way....I'm not really seeing Hive Mind, and disagree that monsters in a dungeon should be happy to turn on each other when Player Characters arrive. They don't have to have a hive mind to be on the same side.


Another one is that a high level dragon was hard to see? The size modifiers alone would make almost any hide check almost impossible, and most dragons don't take ranks in hide if memory serves ;)Having to say "I look up" or "I look over at the X" is not necessarily a bad thing - the whole "I am not my character - he should be smarter/wiser/more perceptive than I'm playing him" doesn't really sit well with me, because ultimately, you're the one directing and controlling your character. The dragon had near-total cover/concealment, which breaks line-of-sight. It probably could have been detected had one of the players tried making a spot check for it (Either by saying "I look up", or saying "Is there any sign of the dragon? Spot check, or would that be search?"). I am not a fan of the Skill system completely replacing Dungeon-Crawling habits.


The intelligent item not going along? Any ways the characters (especially the mage casting the spell) would know that it wouldn't go along? The characters know more about the world and how it works than the PC's do. They probably would have been able to figure out more about the artifact had they not been forced to hit a Panic Button to escape. At least the adventure wasn't a COMPLETE waste.


One last thing, in general, not specific to the encounter...I was thinking about the hydra that splits up attacks and damages everyone versus your critters that focus fire on one player until he drops. One thing to consider is that the player who's character is focus fired down now can no longer play. He's just sitting there as a spectator twiddling his thumbs. This can be frustrating, especially if you are taken down in the first round before you act and don't get to play with your toys. The DM doesn't have this issue as if one monster is dropped before he does something, the DM has lots more to play with.I agree with this sort of thing - Monsters like Dragons and Hydras have an obscene amount of attacks and great Natural Reach so they can be a threat to the whole party. Having them focus-fire, while certainly "optimal" given the issues with D&D's combat mechanics, are not only a ridiculous damage multiplier when applied to a single target, but also tend to not make any goddamn sense at all when trying to envision it. At least Beholders have hard limits on how many beams they can shoot at one person/direction. Even in groups, focus-fire should be avoided.

Yes, a CR-appropriate encounter should use 20% of a party's resources. But, in a party of 5, it's NOT supposed to mean that every CR-appropriate encounter completely annihilates one guy and leaves the other four unharmed.

shadow_archmagi
2013-09-03, 12:38 PM
I can understand your player's viewpoint. I think a big part of it is that this generation of gamers (myself included, although I'm 5+ years into D&D now so I've shaken off a lot of my assumptions) started with video games, where the default assumption is that the enemy will never use clever tactics, and you can use all the clever tactics you want.

And indeed, when playing a tabletop RPG, I find it very satisfying when I get to run rings around the enemies via creativity because the GM plays them very flat and straightforward. There's definitely something to be said for the pleasure of feeling like you're the cleverest person in the world!

That said, I wouldn't object if a tremendously clever person wanted to GM, and their monsters used ingenious tactics (although I might object if the monsters were very low INT creatures, but that would be less of a real complaint and more just a reaction to things going poorly, if they started going poorly) but I could see how a player could say that his preferred game style is not the one you've described.

Scow2
2013-09-03, 12:47 PM
As you and I both indicated, I was commenting on the facts as presented originally, which made no mention of which of the PCs were killing how many Zombies at what rate or difficulty. What the Zombie Lord learned in the example you give (assuming that Plane Shifting in some form was not viable, since it was apparently a "no way out" dungeon for the PCs) was which of the PCs should get the most of his attention.

If "all" of the items had "a bad look about them," then the intelligent thing to do is pick up NONE of the treasure the dungeon provides, and hope that you'll get sufficient recompense later. This is a particularly Gygaxian approach to things, which is sometimes portrayed as "guess what the DM is thinking."

"Not triggering all the traps" is a fine goal, but it relies either on having a trapfinder in the party (which, from your original indication, they lacked) or having phenomenal luck in avoiding the traps they could not find, or on not interacting with the dungeon. If, instead, it relies on the Players picking up particular cues the DM provides in description in order to find the traps that, in Character, they had no means of finding, then you're advocating using metagame knowledge in order to survive the dungeon. Some groups are fine with that; some groups consider it anathema.

And, if the goal you've agreed upon at the onset of your game is "this is a teaching tool," then "teaching them to think" (specifically, teaching them to think along the same lines as the DM) is great, or at least fine. If that's not the goal you've all agreed upon at the onset of the game. . . then folks are working at cross purposes.I don't have any problems with the Gygaxian approach. Just because a player/character cannot find a trap doesn't mean he doesn't know one is in the area. There's a big gulf between "This hallway is absolutely harmless. You should stroll right down it!" and "You find a Barrage of Needle traps that shoot out of a series of thinly-covered holes drilled three feet up in the left wall and obscured by a fresco, triggered by a pressure plate located under the third floor tile from the western wall, in line with the chipped pharaoh." A Trapmonkey-free party shouldn't be completely helpless against traps - they should merely have less precise information on them, and have to find alternate ways of finding/disarming them. Having a dedicated trapmonkey allows someone to bypass the Gygaxing minigame - but that can be fun and empowering in its own right. In fact, one of the biggest 'failings' of later playstyles of 3rd Edition is people using Perception, Stealth, Disable Device, and other skills to completely bypass/replace Gygaxian Dungeon-crawling, which made exploration encounters as engaging, detailed, and interesting as combat encounters.

The "intelligent" thing would have been to "take an item - Oops, its' cursed", and don't take any more until they have a way of dealing with the curses - possibly ending up with 2-5 cursed items either through oversight (Did you just grab that pile of gold after we realized this treasure was cursed earlier/last session?" "Oops, dammit"), desperation (like grabbing a weapon off the wall after you lose your weapon/find it's ineffective), hope (I think this item looks different. It might not be cursed), or systematic study of the curses (Such as checking curse variety and severity).

TriForce
2013-09-03, 01:32 PM
My gut reaction is basically "A player who thinks he is entitled to win just because he is there, deserves nothing but seeing his character defeated and humiliated." And while that's probably too harsh, it's unfortunately true anyway.
It is also not that helpful I fear, as petty revenge as amusing and justified it may be is usually not that helpful to actually solve any conflicts.

The bigger issue however is the horrible concept that the GM is somehow obligated to Custom-made the campaign specifically for the players or that the players are entitled to be entertained by the GM. This is a poisonous position that should be stomped down immediately and brutally whenever it rears its ugly head.

Under almost all circumstances, players are not customers who can expect some sort of service. They are not doing the GM any favor for playing in their game. They are not doing anyone a favor by complaining about things. In an RPG, the players are not the audience, they are supposed to actively and constructively contribute to the story. This is not a one way relationship where the player is just a consumer of an offered product. They are supposed to be an active part of the game, and the whole 'Here we are now, entertain us' mentality can easily turn running a game from a pleasure to a chore. Player passivity and laziness are not an alternative play style; they are annoying quirks at best.
Or, to summarize: The Gamemaster is by no means obligated to entertain the players. He is more or less obligated to make a good story and to the game as a whole but so is everybody else.

i couldnt disagree more

players are not random passerby's, they are, more often then not, your friends. and yes, a GM is supposed to custom tailor a campaign to the players, since the eventual goal is for everyone to have fun. in that way the DM is obliged to entertain the players, just as much as the players are obliged to entertain the DM.

now ofcourse you shouldnt cater to the players every wish, especially not childish and stupid players like the OP's, but in any normal group it is the task of the DM to make sure that every encounter, every situation is challenging. dangerous, but a;ways fair. if the players all want to play fighters, and you planned a encounter or problem that required a dispel magic, you either need to give them acces to that option some other way, or just think of something else and save that idea for another time

BaronOfHell
2013-09-03, 01:40 PM
It's my opinion that several checks should be rolled depending on the typical behaviour of a given creature. Those checks should culminate in what the creature knows about the encounter and from its its mental stats the DM ought to choose how it responds. But it should only respond similarly to someone of equal mental stats in the group if such a person exists (changed due to personal experience of course, but never being way smarter or wiser).

So maybe a tribe of orcs will fight to the end no matter the opposition, therefore despite their mental stats, they should never roll the required knowledge check.

Similarly a Green Dragon may have huge mental stats were a Hydra doesn't, but a Hydra should then be fighting on instinct like it'd against a similar typical encounter, which for it would be similar to dinner, so why should it not just stand and attack? And of course try to flee once it gets confused by the situation. On the other hand, the Dragon, unless trained in such through various possible means, should not know about stealth tactics, it should use what it realistically knows and apply its mental stats to this knowledge to formulate how to deal with the situation. It ought to run the appropriate knowledge checks and if it fails those, it's not certain it'd, e.g. recognize if it even could debuff its opposition, or if it had time to buff. Being wise, it might not be interested in fight, and there ought to try stuff like diplomacy and bluff first, and if it often meets encounters it ought to have an escape plan as well.

Goblins fleeing from an invisible enemy depends on the goblins. If they've the mental stats to recognize it of course they should flee. In fact it'd seem strange these goblins even existed if they wouldn't flee. On the other hand they also ought to roll knowledge religion and some of the goblins ought to stay and try to appease the evil presence in various ways, by rolling religion checks, if they've a shaman in their tribe.

Though that's just me.

Scow2
2013-09-03, 01:46 PM
I can understand your player's viewpoint. I think a big part of it is that this generation of gamers (myself included, although I'm 5+ years into D&D now so I've shaken off a lot of my assumptions) started with video games, where the default assumption is that the enemy will never use clever tactics, and you can use all the clever tactics you want.

And indeed, when playing a tabletop RPG, I find it very satisfying when I get to run rings around the enemies via creativity because the GM plays them very flat and straightforward. There's definitely something to be said for the pleasure of feeling like you're the cleverest person in the world!

That said, I wouldn't object if a tremendously clever person wanted to GM, and their monsters used ingenious tactics (although I might object if the monsters were very low INT creatures, but that would be less of a real complaint and more just a reaction to things going poorly, if they started going poorly) but I could see how a player could say that his preferred game style is not the one you've described.... I think it's not just video games, but also early adventure modules that shaped the video games that lead to this behavior.

XP-for-Encounter-based adventures don't quite work as well if the encounters use the same shenanigans and self-preservation as the players, where the party's only really rewarded for is destroying monsters/enemies, and having anything less than absolute neutralization of an encounter gives a sense of "Defeating" it. If monsters exercise Adventurer-level self-preservation, the only monsters that will EVER stick around to fight are the "Overwhelming" encounters - otherwise, they'd see that the party is five times more powerful than they are, and get the hell out of dodge. The only way to get XP is to take on beasts that are capable of annihilating the party, with at best a 50% chance of a non-TPK. After all - if a D&D party's usually unwilling to face an encounter with a 60% chance of them being defeated, why would any NPC? After all, the average, say, Level 5 Adventuring Party has an Encounter Level of 9 from levels alone, but with the Wealth of ~ an EL 12 encounter. From the Monster side, the only way for that to be anything less than an "Overwhelming" encounter is to halve the party's wealth, and even then it's on the border.


However, it highlights a PC/NPC imbalance that Scow2 hinted at before: as I understand things, if the monsters in Talakeal's game retreat, they get to choose the time and place where they will attack the PCs again, with that "attack the PCs again" part being assured; conversely, if the PCs in Talakeal's game retreat, the monsters get to choose the time and place where they will attack the PCs again, with that "attack the PCs again" part being assured. In other words, the monsters in this campaign, as described, always have the option and ability to engage the PCs when it's most advantageous for the monsters to do so. This is thanks in no small part to the fact that as DM, Talakeal has a significant information flow advantage over the PCs, which he apparently believes he should use as best he can. Well, given the discrepency in power-level between player characters and monsters, I figure them being able to choose the time and place of their encounters gives them at least an illusion of a hope of winning - after all, the Player Characters are the aggressors usually, and enemies would fight more defensively. However, it can feel very disappointing if the GM has NPCs not play at all when the players try to buff or set up ambushes - if Monsters have PC-levels of self-preservation, they'd immediately run as soon as the Player Characters show up because nobody wants to face an encounter 4 levels above them with the resources of one 6 levels above them.


The problem is that the mechanics of advancement do lead one to believe that a high-level caster is also an experienced murderhobo. In most systems, Einstein would work out to several levels of Expert with an Int of 19 or 20 (dice be damned.)Not quite. Most High-level casters get that way over years, decades, or centuries of power-accumulation. A murderhobo has a crazy-fast life that allows them to achieve that level of accomplishment in as little as half a year, though it's probably closer to one or two years.

Talakeal
2013-09-03, 02:11 PM
From the evidence so far, I'd guess Talakeal's reaction to having the PCs retreat in the face of invisible Nixies would be to have them gather at some future point in the dungeon (using the term in its broadest game sense) and forcing the PCs to fight them again elsewhere, probably with additional buffs and/or reinforcements. The same would appear to be the case if the PCs were to find themselves doing poorly and managed a retreat. That's not intended as an indictment, just an observation.

However, it highlights a PC/NPC imbalance that Scow2 hinted at before: as I understand things, if the monsters in Talakeal's game retreat, they get to choose the time and place where they will attack the PCs again, with that "attack the PCs again" part being assured; conversely, if the PCs in Talakeal's game retreat, the monsters get to choose the time and place where they will attack the PCs again, with that "attack the PCs again" part being assured. In other words, the monsters in this campaign, as described, always have the option and ability to engage the PCs when it's most advantageous for the monsters to do so. This is thanks in no small part to the fact that as DM, Talakeal has a significant information flow advantage over the PCs, which he apparently believes he should use as best he can.

Well, sort of. There is no one in the party who is very good at perception skills, and the party doesn't ever think to track anything unless I lead them by the nose. The party mage HATES divination, because* it is trading useful power (spell points) for meaningless fluff (in character knowledge). So yeah, it is pretty easy to escape and or trail this group.

If the party had abandoned the adventure because of an invisible enemy that would be pretty silly. They can easily counter invisibility with both spells and skills, it wouldn't be like a tribe of stupid orcs who don't have a chance to pinpoint them even with a natural 20 on a listen check.

Also, invisibility is a racial ability for fairies, so it is not like they can come back later when the buffs ran out.

If you mean ran DEEPER into the dungeon, this is precisely what they did. The nixies were never a combat encounter (although the PCs probably should have attacked THEM) they were simply moving through the dungeon acting as messengers and scouts for the dragon.

*I think, he gives a different excuse in any given situation, but I am pretty sure this is his real reason.


You used a riddle. That makes us sworn enemies and we must duel somewhere dramatic, possibly with lava in the background.

That aside:

The "can't teleport with an unwilling intelligent item" thing strikes me as obnoxious. Did they know it was intelligent? Did they have a reasonable opportunity to check? Would they have realized the implications if they had checked? For players like you're describing, it'd be a good idea to spell out some things that you might prefer to leave to them to figure out. With the ghost thing, too, and with the interrupted description of the opening room, you should probably have given them more information (even if they complained of being bored by it) so that your actions wouldn't seem arbitrary and unfair. As is, it sounds like a self-reinforcing situation where they don't pay attention to what you tell them because it feels to them like you're just thwarting them by fiat.


I don't usually like riddles either. But it seemed appropriate, as the bonus room was a library that was open to anyone with sufficient intellect. It was an optional reward, not part of the main plot, and I thought it would be a fun little mini game (and my PCs really seem to enjoy riddles on the rare occasions I put them in). They could have bypassed it with magic, in character intelligence tests, or even disable device, but didn't try because they were pouting about my "unfair riddle."

As for intelligent items, yes the PCs new the artifact was intelligent, and RAW is that intelligent items count as creatures and creatures must be willing to teleport. If a band of murder-hobos grabbed you and in the night and carried you away, and then when the person who had protected and cared for you for ten thousand years tried to stop them, would YOU be willing?

I agree with the communication, and I can see how it was a self reinforcing phenomenon. I was pretty frustrated with the players attitude (starting with telling me to shut up half way through my description of the players first encounter) so I wasn't going out of my way to provide them with extra clues. I will admit that I wasn't feeling particularly generous*, but I wasn't going out of my way to screw them either.

*: I just KNOW someone is going to throw that admission of guilt back in my face in a couple of posts when they are trying to tell me I am the worst thing to ever slink out from behind the DM's screen and I have no right to sit at a table.


Some things in the description of the dragon adventure, etc bother me.

First off, you mention the players being allowed Sense Motive if they want to. Sense Motive should be a passive skill, not an active skill...And should be always rolled. Do you always have NPC's roll sense motive against PC's when they try to bluff, etc? The same should be said. I also wonder if you asked the PC's for a spot roll to notice the invisible critters.

Another thing is that all your monsters seem to operate under a hive mind and are all extremely organized. When going against evil enemies, there should be plenty that would be happy if the PC's take care of their rivals. Are there every any factions among the enemies that the PC's could exploit, or are all your monsters a hive mind that always instictively know what all the other monsters are doing and always work together and rush to help them? Just by being a DM, you have an advantage this way.

Another one is that a high level dragon was hard to see? The size modifiers alone would make almost any hide check almost impossible, and most dragons don't take ranks in hide if memory serves ;)

The intelligent item not going along? Any ways the characters (especially the mage casting the spell) would know that it wouldn't go along? The characters know more about the world and how it works than the PC's do.

One last thing, in general, not specific to the encounter...I was thinking about the hydra that splits up attacks and damages everyone versus your critters that focus fire on one player until he drops. One thing to consider is that the player who's character is focus fired down now can no longer play. He's just sitting there as a spectator twiddling his thumbs. This can be frustrating, especially if you are taken down in the first round before you act and don't get to play with your toys. The DM doesn't have this issue as if one monster is dropped before he does something, the DM has lots more to play with.

I sometimes use passive sense motive tests. I do not, however, tell the players when they need to roll an active test as this makes them paranoid and they then assume the NPC is lying regardless of what the dice says.

In a sense many of the enemies were a "hive mind". Most are under mind control by the dragon, and those who aren't are being given orders through the nixies or telepathy. The dragon is an arch mage of charm and divination as I said.

The dragon was over a hundred feet above the PCs in a pitch dark alcove that obscured most of its body. And it was a black dragon, which does have hide and move silently as class skills.

As I said, the players knew the artifact was sentient. Sentient items count as creatures. You can't teleport an unwilling creature. That is straightforward RAW.

As for focusing fire, yes, I agree it does suck to have your character taken down, although that is no reason to throw a temper tantrum about it like my players usually do. However, it is also sucks for me as a DM to be forbidden to use basic tactics, because at that point I am not really playing either, I am simply an automatic dice rolling system for the PCs.
It is mostly a moot point though as this was in 3.0, both later editions of D&D and my homebrew system allow for players to manage "agro" and allow the defenders to keep the monster focused on them.

skyth
2013-09-03, 02:38 PM
I think he would - and having skills be non-passive is a viable, but probably frustrating, way to handle the system - Just like someone doesn't roll Move Silently just to walk or run down a corridor at penalties when they're not trying to be quiet, it's perfectly acceptable for someone to not make a Perception Check if they're not actively looking for something. However, "Make a Spot check" does work for situations where there's something that might be obvious at first glance, but also easy to overlook. Sense Motive can be used in a similar way - if something prods your suspicion, you ask for a Sense Motive Check.

So if your DM is very charismatic and can bluff easily, the characters should be at a disadvantage. By this, you are doing the DM versus Player rather than the DM trying to challenge the players' characters.



...I'm not really seeing Hive Mind, and disagree that monsters in a dungeon should be happy to turn on each other when Player Characters arrive. They don't have to have a hive mind to be on the same side.

As being against evil groups, it is more likely that there should be infighting and groups that would welcome the PC's taking out a rival, then the group in question takes out the PC's after their rival is taken out...Or that is their plan.
Evil is not monolithic.



Having to say "I look up" or "I look over at the X" is not necessarily a bad thing - the whole "I am not my character - he should be smarter/wiser/more perceptive than I'm playing him" doesn't really sit well with me, because ultimately, you're the one directing and controlling your character.

First off, that sort of attitude requires the PC's to trust the DM...I'd be leary of playing in that sort of campaign where the DM looks for something you didn't say you are looking for as an opportunity to screw over the player in question. This leads to campaigns where the PC's waste time examining every little detail and going into minutia about what they are examining. Really, the PC's should be competant and this is what the spot/listen checks represent in addition to the search skill when actively looking for something. Having to play paranoid isn't fun.

Do you ask wizards for the exact words and phrases for their spells or they don't work? Do you ask fighters exactly how they are swinging their sword with every attack? Then why the exception with the guy with a high spot skill?

Like it or not, the characters are in the world and are more skilled than the players controlling them are. Something that is 'obvious' to them might not be obvious to the player. The player should be able to help the skill level of the character, but the player's skill level should not hold back the character.



The dragon had near-total cover/concealment, which breaks line-of-sight. It probably could have been detected had one of the players tried making a spot check for it (Either by saying "I look up", or saying "Is there any sign of the dragon? Spot check, or would that be search?"). I am not a fan of the Skill system completely replacing Dungeon-Crawling habits.

Was there an opposed listen versus move silently check then? From the description, the dragon knew exactly what the PC's were doing. As for 'Dungeon-Crawling habits', that is exactly what the spot/listen skill is for so that the players don't have to live in constant paranoia that the DM is out to get them.

Talakeal
2013-09-03, 02:46 PM
As being against evil groups, it is more likely that there should be infighting and groups that would welcome the PC's taking out a rival, then the group in question takes out the PC's after their rival is taken out...Or that is their plan.
Evil is not monolithic.

Nothing in the temple was actually evil. The dragon is a the artifact's guardian and is true neutral, he cares about nothing but studying and keeping his word.
The aboleths are also neutral, they were just visiting the many libraries located within the temple and are helping to defend the temple when it is attacked.
The humanoids are dominated survivors of previous treasure hunting groups who came to raid the dungeon. They are all alignments but have no free will.
The nixies are CN, and are the caretaker descendants of those who built the temple in the first place.
The sahuagin are neutral, they live in the temple and believe the dragon to be a god and do what it says.
The sea monsters are mostly just animals and defending their lair, although some had been trained as pets by the sahuagin or dragon, who is not above using mind control to get them to do what he wants.



Was there an opposed listen versus move silently check then? From the description, the dragon knew exactly what the PC's were doing. As for 'Dungeon-Crawling habits', that is exactly what the spot/listen skill is for so that the players don't have to live in constant paranoia that the DM is out to get them.

Yeah, I am not a huge fan of old school tell me everything your character does either. But there is a big difference between "I check X, Y, Z, first, then do A, B, C,, then I move to locations Q-T and repeat seven times" and "I search the room". My players did neither. Also, if the players never approach the area where the enemy is hiding, or shine a light into dark areas, they aren't going to pass a perception check due to the negative modifiers regardless of whether it is active or passive.

skyth
2013-09-03, 03:12 PM
Nothing in the temple was actually evil. The dragon is a the artifact's guardian and is true neutral, he cares about nothing but studying and keeping his word.
The aboleths are also neutral, they were just visiting the many libraries located within the temple and are helping to defend the temple when it is attacked.
The humanoids are dominated survivors of previous treasure hunting groups who came to raid the dungeon. They are all alignments but have no free will.
The nixies are CN, and are the caretaker descendants of those who built the temple in the first place.
The sahuagin are neutral, they live in the temple and believe the dragon to be a god and do what it says.
The sea monsters are mostly just animals and defending their lair, although some had been trained as pets by the sahuagin or dragon, who is not above using mind control to get them to do what he wants.

Completely dominating them for long lengths of time IS evil...Not to mention Black Dragons and Aboleth and Sauhauguin are usually evil. But the question arises...Do you allow for infighting or groups in the same dungeon not wanting to help out others that are 'allied' to them? Or is everyone the PC's face always hyper organized and best buddies? It's nice that the Aboleths are Neutral and just visiting, but they go out of their way to follow and try to kill the PC's. To me, neutral plus just visiting, they shouldn't have doggedly followed the PC's when the PCs managed to bypass them. This is just the sort of factional difference that I was talking about.




Yeah, I am not a huge fan of old school tell me everything your character does either. But there is a big difference between "I check X, Y, Z, first, then do A, B, C,, then I move to locations Q-T and repeat seven times" and "I search the room". My players did neither. Also, if the players never approach the area where the enemy is hiding, or shine a light into dark areas, they aren't going to pass a perception check due to the negative modifiers regardless of whether it is active or passive.

Listen doesn't care if it's dark or not. I was also replying to the previous poster who insists that if the players don't think to look up then the characters don't.

The biggest issue here, though, is that you see this as a simulation. The players see it as a game. Are you willing to bend at all as far as seeing things from the eyes of your players? Your previous comment about 'yeah it sucks to not be able to play, but I want to use basic tactics' when you focus fire on a PC and take him out of the fight makes it seem like you are unbending and focused only on your fun and not caring about the player who has to sit around twiddling his thumbs all night's enjoyment.

Talakeal
2013-09-03, 04:04 PM
Completely dominating them for long lengths of time IS evil...Not to mention Black Dragons and Aboleth and Sauhauguin are usually evil. But the question arises...Do you allow for infighting or groups in the same dungeon not wanting to help out others that are 'allied' to them? Or is everyone the PC's face always hyper organized and best buddies? It's nice that the Aboleths are Neutral and just visiting, but they go out of their way to follow and try to kill the PC's. To me, neutral plus just visiting, they shouldn't have doggedly followed the PC's when the PCs managed to bypass them. This is just the sort of factional difference that I was talking about.

The biggest issue here, though, is that you see this as a simulation. The players see it as a game. Are you willing to bend at all as far as seeing things from the eyes of your players? Your previous comment about 'yeah it sucks to not be able to play, but I want to use basic tactics' when you focus fire on a PC and take him out of the fight makes it seem like you are unbending and focused only on your fun and not caring about the player who has to sit around twiddling his thumbs all night's enjoyment.

In my campaign world there are no monsters that are innately evil. Mind controlling people might be evil (although the "good" PC does it all the time), but the dragon is only doing it to people who have previously attacked it, which to me seems more like a very harsh neutral than outright evil.

This is a sacred library to the aboleths. It is where they congregate to socialize and study, and it may well have been the location which gave birth to their entire race. They have a vested interest in not allowing the library to be plundered.

Yes, I quite often have scenarios where there are multiple factions working against one another. This usually ends very badly for the PCs as they don't like moral complexity and usually find a way to unite everyone against them or side with the most evil of the groups and end up doing things they later regret. However, in a standard dungeon crawl which is under the control of single intelligent being or faction it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for hostile beings to just be wandering around. Prisoners or invaders on the other hand is something I have used in the past.

As for the simulation vs. game argument, I would buy it if it went both ways. If the party says "I want to use teleport to skip the dragon" I am not allowed to say "Guys, fighting the dragon is part of the game, you need to play it out", because that would be a breach of the simulation. But if I instead say "Ok the dragon reacts in character and responds intelligently" I am suddenly being a "simulations" and ruining the game.

I am not saying I care more about my fun than the player's fun, usually quite the opposite, but I am saying that if I can never use basic tactics then the GAME aspect is never fun for me because I have no input on it. I recognize that missing out on playtime sucks, as does losing, but those are all aspects of games. Even Monopoly sometimes makes players spend a few turns in jail.

Scow2
2013-09-03, 04:06 PM
So if your DM is very charismatic and can bluff easily, the characters should be at a disadvantage. By this, you are doing the DM versus Player rather than the DM trying to challenge the players' characters.It's the players who are playing the game, not the characters. The DM's job is to challenge the players, with their characters being their tools and resolution mechanic. A player should feel free to roll sense motive whenever something doesn't seem right.


As being against evil groups, it is more likely that there should be infighting and groups that would welcome the PC's taking out a rival, then the group in question takes out the PC's after their rival is taken out...Or that is their plan.
Evil is not monolithic. Evil is not monolithic across the world. Two evil organizations will usuallybe at odds. But loyalty within the same organization can be absolute and unbreakable by an "Outsider". Evil is not dumb.

First off, that sort of attitude requires the PC's to trust the DM...I'd be leary of playing in that sort of campaign where the DM looks for something you didn't say you are looking for as an opportunity to screw over the player in question. This leads to campaigns where the PC's waste time examining every little detail and going into minutia about what they are examining. Really, the PC's should be competant and this is what the spot/listen checks represent in addition to the search skill when actively looking for something. Having to play paranoid isn't fun. If you don't trust the DM, you have far bigger issues. I find it disgusting that playing D&D the Classic way is considered Wrong and Bad - without Greyhawking and Gygaxing, you're playing Sword and Sorcery Adventure, not D&D.

And examining the world and taking specific (Though usually broad) actions to resolve exploring a room or disarming a trapped corridor isn't any more of a waste of time than taking several rounds of combat to defeat a single encounter (Often taking anywhere from half to an hour of playtime). That an entire challenge can be reduced to a single skill roll by a single character is one of the biggest failings of D&D 3.5... and 4e's early implementation of Skill Challenges managed to be even worse.

That said, there needs to be a balance between inspecting every bit of minutia and relying strictly on passive spot/listen checks and expecting the DM to feed everything to you simply from your scores in those skills. It's like passing a crowd and expecting to pick out your best friend Fred in it without scanning for him, or even bothering to look at anyone in the crowd. A person with a high spot/listen skill doesn't have a constant Detect Everything ability (Except Elves and Dwarves with their Detect Secret Doors and Stonecunning) - they are good at noticing important details and picking things out from what they see. You actually have to look to use Spot, and actually have to listen to use the Listen skill. The GM shouldn't have to make the rolls unsolicited, unless it's for something transient or potentially-obvious, because it IS unfair to the player to expect him to choose to make the relevent check in the same timeframe something moves.

That said - he shouldn't withhold the information that would be gleaned by a roll because the player isn't sure what he's looking/listening for.


Do you ask wizards for the exact words and phrases for their spells or they don't work? Do you ask fighters exactly how they are swinging their sword with every attack? Then why the exception with the guy with a high spot skill?Do you make the wizard's player tell you what spells he prepares his own spells, when he casts them and what he casts them on? Do you make the fighter tell you who he's attacking and with what abilities/attacks? Or do you choose what spells the wizard prepares and passively have him cast them as they're needed based on his mental stats and passively roll the fighter's attack rolls when a Monster appears, then tell him he kills it but takes X damage from it, or it kills him but takes Y damage after Z rounds? Why the exception to the guy with the high spot/search/listen skill?

A player should actively solicit spot checks, by either specifying he looks in a certain direction or toward a specific object, or is looking around for something. Listen checks should be solicited as well, either through the classic "I listen at the door", or "I try to listen for the Invisible Monster" (Doesn't have to be repeated), to a simple "I want to make a listen check".

The exception to solicited perception checks is if something moves, or otherwise is something the player wouldn't pick up on because of changing or obscure circumstances.


Like it or not, the characters are in the world and are more skilled than the players controlling them are. Something that is 'obvious' to them might not be obvious to the player. The player should be able to help the skill level of the character, but the player's skill level should not hold back the character.Except the player's skill DOES hold back the character just as much as the inverse - Otherwise, the DM has to veto or override any action the players make if it's not consistent with the character's skills and attributes, as any Wizard who fries his own team with a Fireball can tell you.


Was there an opposed listen versus move silently check then? From the description, the dragon knew exactly what the PC's were doing. As for 'Dungeon-Crawling habits', that is exactly what the spot/listen skill is for so that the players don't have to live in constant paranoia that the DM is out to get them.Had the players bothered to have their characters listen to their surroundings, they would have been able to oppose the Move Silently check. Giving players a completely free pass on perception checks isn't any different from giving them a free pass on any other check or roll. They're Spot and Listen checks, not Spot and listen Saves.

Unsolicited perception checks are the greatest form of paranoia, because they assume the character is constantly looking around for anything that might be out of place or of interest, AND listening to every sound around them no matter how small or insignificant AND at least mildly distrustful of EVERYTHING they hear.

Completely dominating them for long lengths of time IS evil...[quote]The BoED and BoVD disagree. Mind control is not evil. Mistreating and abusing Mind-Controlled people, however, is.
[quote]Listen doesn't care if it's dark or not. I was also replying to the previous poster who insists that if the players don't think to look up then the characters don't.But listen DOES require you to listen, and it is NOT a passive skill. If you actually want to get anything out of listening, you have to invest attention to it. They'd only be entitled to an unsolicited listen check if the dragon did anything that would change the amount of noise he wasn't making (Assuming he hadn't cast silence on himself)



As for the simulation vs. game argument, I would buy it if it went both ways. If the party says "I want to use teleport to skip the dragon" I am not allowed to say "Guys, fighting the dragon is part of the game, you need to play it out", because that would be a breach of the simulation. But if I instead say "Ok the dragon reacts in character and responds intelligently" I am suddenly being a "simulations" and ruining the game.

I am not saying I care more about my fun than the player's fun, usually quite the opposite, but I am saying that if I can never use basic tactics then the GAME aspect is never fun for me because I have no input on it. I recognize that missing out on playtime sucks, as does losing, but those are all aspects of games. Even Monopoly sometimes makes players spend a few turns in jail.
I won't say anything about whether it's Simulationist or Game, but I will re-assert that I think having Hydras/Dragons focus-fire their way-too-many natural weapons against a single character is a **** move. Those monsters are designed to threaten an entire party, instead of having to choose just one character to screw over each time it acts. That they can focus-fire like they do is a result of there not being any better way to handle them without making their combat rules a complete mess. Player characters aren't supposed to get access to that kind of ability (Hence Dual-Wielding's stupidly high cost), but, like most things in 3.5, Wizards can do it anyway.

Also - In late-game Monopoly, you WANT to be in Jail. And, you can roll to escape. And, people still give you money. And, you can still engage in everything you can do at any time, like trade properties and bid on bankrupt player's ones. And, that game is deliberately designed to be anti-fun - hence the total lockout after you're knocked out.

skyth
2013-09-03, 05:07 PM
A player should actively solicit spot checks, by either specifying he looks in a certain direction or toward a specific object, or is looking around for something. Listen checks should be solicited as well, either through the classic "I listen at the door", or "I try to listen for the Invisible Monster" (Doesn't have to be repeated), to a simple "I want to make a listen check".

No. The spot skill is entirely passive. A player cannot actively use the spot skill. The active version (when you are looking for something) is search. Listen can be used passively or actively. Your example about picking your friend out of a crowd without looking...A character with high spot would be able to do that. They've trained themselves to notice things without even trying to and to rapidly process that information. Just like a character that takes weapon focus has trained themselves to be more adept at bypassing an attempted parry by their opponent.


Besides the 'let players play with their toys' argument, being able to use skills like spot, listen, and sense motive passively is a hack for one very important thing. The world exists only in the DM's mind. The players only know what the DM has told them and what is clear in the DM's mind may not be clear or may be interpreted differently by the players. Not to mention that NPC's ALWAYS know when it's appropriate to roll a sense motive/search/listen/spot/etc. roll. NPCs only exist when they are interacting with a player's character.

Would you allow a player who is extremely charismatic and glib to constantly bluff NPC's even though the character he plays is a half orc barbarian with a charisma of 6, or would you be regularly rolling sense motive for all the NPC's?

skyth
2013-09-03, 05:16 PM
I am saying that if I can never use basic tactics then the GAME aspect is never fun for me because I have no input on it.

No, you want to use advanced strategy. Basic tactics would be trying to set up flanks in the combat, move wounded guys back to get healed, drop a fireball on unengaged guys.

Anything lasting more than one 'combat' is dealing with strategy, not tactics. And using maneuver and guerilla warfare is up there with advanced strategy, not basic strategy.

Talakeal
2013-09-03, 05:22 PM
No, you want to use advanced strategy. Basic tactics would be trying to set up flanks in the combat, move wounded guys back to get healed, drop a fireball on unengaged guys.

Anything lasting more than one 'combat' is dealing with strategy, not tactics. And using maneuver and guerilla warfare is up there with advanced strategy, not basic strategy.

Sorry, I thought we were still talking about having enemies go after the party members with the lowest AC and focusing fire rather than splitting their attacks between different PCs.

I agree that ambushes and guerilla tactics fall under the purview of strategy rather than tactics, but I am not sure I would call them "advanced". Either way, they are strategies the PCs employ all the time, and allowing one side to use strategies but forbidding the other side to do so isn't really fair in a "gamist" environment and isn't believable in a "simulationist" environment.


Also, I don't use separate search / spot / listen skills. I have a single perception skill. If there is something hidden I roll passively, with a -10 penalty.

If the character is actively searching they roll normally, and I don't require the players to say how they are doing the searching, although I will give a small bonus or penalty if the player does come up with an especially good (or boneheaded) plan for how they conduct the search, and their actions (such as casting a buff spell or using a light source to illuminate the area) would modify the difficulty.

No one in the party is particularly good at perception, and when the enemy is sitting stationary 100 feet above them with cover and concealment the party had a very small chance of spotting the dragon. If they had actively searched they would have hard a moderate change, and if they had thought to get to higher ground or light up the ceiling they would have had a very good chance. Of course, if they had actually gone up and explored the alcoves or even cast a divination spell before looting the hoard they would have had a 100% chance. They didn't do any of this.

Bulhakov
2013-09-03, 05:23 PM
As I said, the players knew the artifact was sentient. Sentient items count as creatures. You can't teleport an unwilling creature. That is straightforward RAW.


I assume you did not remind the players of this rule until after they suffered the consequences of not knowing/remembering it? Do you consider that fair?

It really seems you're playing too much "against" your players and not "with" them. I'm in the camp that a good DM should be able to adjust the difficulty and playstyle, to best suit the group. Provide challenges that are fun for the players, not fun for you. Hard enough challenges that the players feel rewarded by completing them, but not so hard that they feel annoyed and do not enjoy them. Give out enough information and if necessary give hints/reminders, so that the players never feel "cheated" that they missed or did not know something. If you cannot do that, ask someone else to DM and be a player for a while, or if possible find a group that enjoys your DM style.

Talakeal
2013-09-03, 05:34 PM
I assume you did not remind the players of this rule until after they suffered the consequences of not knowing/remembering it? Do you consider that fair?

It really seems you're playing too much "against" your players and not "with" them. I'm in the camp that a good DM should be able to adjust the difficulty and playstyle, to best suit the group. Provide challenges that are fun for the players, not fun for you. Hard enough challenges that the players feel rewarded by completing them, but not so hard that they feel annoyed and do not enjoy them. Give out enough information and if necessary give hints/reminders, so that the players never feel "cheated" that they missed or did not know something. If you cannot do that, ask someone else to DM and be a player for a while, or if possible find a group that enjoys your DM style.

As I said, I normally would remind the players of something like this beforehand. But the players had already been telling me to "shut up" or accused me of "cheating" the whole session, and so I didn't feel like giving them hints and was instead playing the situation totally straight.

Giving hints is, imo, "nice" behavior, but not giving hints is not "mean" behavior, it is, what I would consider lawful neutral DMing.

Also, I have to be careful giving too many hints, as my players get frustrated and feel like I am "playing their characters for them" if I give too many. They also accuse me of cheating or playing favorites if I use BAD tactics, either intentionally or accidently.
I have had numerous times when the players (usually one in particular) says I am cheating by sending over CRed monsters at them. If I ask "If it was so over CRed why did you guys win?" and he says "Because you intentionally played the monster dumb to disguise your cheating*, if you had done X, Y, or Z** the monster would have TPKed us!

*Or, if his PC was injured or ineffective in the encounter he claims I did it to make him look bad without hurting any of the other players who I like better than him.
** Sometimes this is true, usually it isn't. When it is true it is either because I was playing the monster with limited knowledge or intelligence or because I as a player made a tactical mistake.

Scow2
2013-09-03, 05:35 PM
No. The spot skill is entirely passive. A player cannot actively use the spot skill. The active version (when you are looking for something) is search. Listen can be used passively or actively. Your example about picking your friend out of a crowd without looking...A character with high spot would be able to do that. They've trained themselves to notice things without even trying to and to rapidly process that information. Just like a character that takes weapon focus has trained themselves to be more adept at bypassing an attempted parry by their opponent.Search requires 6 seconds to search a 5' square. Spot requires at least LOOKING at something, usually without getting close, and very quickly. Someone with a high Spot doesn't have a perpetually-on Insta-scanner, but when he's looking for or at something, he can find it reliably and quickly. He still has to look at what he's looking for or over, unless it's something that moves.


Besides the 'let players play with their toys' argument, being able to use skills like spot, listen, and sense motive passively is a hack for one very important thing. The world exists only in the DM's mind. The players only know what the DM has told them and what is clear in the DM's mind may not be clear or may be interpreted differently by the players. Not to mention that NPC's ALWAYS know when it's appropriate to roll a sense motive/search/listen/spot/etc. roll. NPCs only exist when they are interacting with a player's character. Which is why you don't want to rely on Passive Sense Motive/Perception. If you think you need more info, ask about a clarification. Make a perception check if necessary. You should make Perception checks frequently when exploring new areas. This isn't any different than a Fighter making Attack rolls frequently when trying to kill a Big Ugly Monster.

"Something Moves/changes" is also an exception to Solicited Perception Checks. Monsters appearing on the scene (even trying to be stealthy) is something that Players cannot observe, but an attentive(Has made a Perception check) character has a chance of detecting, and it might get the attention of an inattentive (Has not made a perception check) character.


Would you allow a player who is extremely charismatic and glib to constantly bluff NPC's even though the character he plays is a half orc barbarian with a charisma of 6, or would you be regularly rolling sense motive for all the NPC's?NPCs would roll sense motive if something seems off, even if they want to believe it. Something contradicts previously-established information? Sense motive. A bit of obscure/important expostion? Sense Motive. The way players present information to each other is different from the way characters are actually doing so.

A DM shouldn't be overly-narrow in what a player's looking for/at in interpreting what a player can see, though, and rely on intuition and give relevant information.

skyth
2013-09-03, 06:01 PM
Someone with a high Spot doesn't have a perpetually-on Insta-scanner

Yes, they do. That is the point of the spot skill. Same as a high knowledge skill...You don't have to stop and think if you know something, it will come to the front of your mind without thinking about it.


Which is why you don't want to rely on Passive Sense Motive/Perception. If you think you need more info, ask about a clarification.

The thing is, if you misinterpret what the DM is trying to say, or he accidently mischaracterizes something...You have no way of knowing that you need clarification. There's an old phrase...'I don't know what I don't know'.

Why not give the players the benefit of the doubt and assume that the characters are being relatively attentive so you don't have to slow down the game where they ask for a perception check every 5' on a 30 mile trek overland and a sense motive check after every sentence any NPC mutters?

Your attitude really appears to be one of someone trying to screw the players over if they can't read your mind.


NPCs would roll sense motive if something seems off, even if they want to believe it. Something contradicts previously-established information? Sense motive. A bit of obscure/important expostion? Sense Motive. The way players present information to each other is different from the way characters are actually doing so.

And likewise the NPC's presenting info to PC's. With how little percentage of time that the players are 'in the world' compared to the characters. There is less of a chance of a player noticing that something is off than the character that is actually there and has lived in the area/culture for 20+ years. NPC's have a lot better 'chance' of realizing that something is off and 'might' need a sense motive/spot/search/listen check.

Give the players the benefit of the doubt and assume that the characters are halfway competant. A rogue that grew up on the street and has high sense motive, spot, and listen checks would always, intuitively, be scanning their surroundings, etc...Or they wouldn't have survived 18 years to reach 1st level.

Think of this situation:

PC (Fighter): 'I swing my sword at the rogue. *rolls* I hit twice and do *rolls* 19 points of damage.'

DM: 'The rogue swings twice at you and *rolls* hits. He does *rolls a bunch of dice* 43 points of damage.'

PC: 'Why did he roll so many dice?'

DM: 'You didn't say you were also trying to avoid his attacks, so you don't get your Dex bonus. That made you easier to hit and he got his sneak attack damage as well.'

PC: ...

This is the same situation you are putting the players in with not allowing passive skill rolls for things.

Now, when I'm DM'ing, I know my players' passive skill bonsues, and roll them for the players when it has a potential of affecting the game.

Scow2
2013-09-03, 06:46 PM
Yes, they do. That is the point of the spot skill. Same as a high knowledge skill...You don't have to stop and think if you know something, it will come to the front of your mind without thinking about it.No, it's not the point of the skill. Spot allows you to find obscure things quickly and notice things you otherwise wouldn't at a glance (Search requires a standard or full-round action, and only covers a 5' square) - but you still have to take that glance. A high spot doesn't mean they're constantly alert, only that, when they are, very little can get past them. And you still have to call for a Knowledge check as well, just like you have to declare an attack or a use of any other skill. They just happen to be free/non-actions. Outside of combat, you don't have 360o vision of everything around you.


The thing is, if you misinterpret what the DM is trying to say, or he accidently mischaracterizes something...You have no way of knowing that you need clarification. There's an old phrase...'I don't know what I don't know'. Most of those times, you don't need Perception either, or you will catch it with a perception check made to do something else. There's also "Are you sure" and unsolicited perception checks for movement.


Why not give the players the benefit of the doubt and assume that the characters are being relatively attentive so you don't have to slow down the game where they ask for a perception check every 5' on a 30 mile trek overland and a sense motive check after every sentence any NPC mutters?We're talking about Overland travel now, which DOES require unsolicited perception checks. Then again, almost all wilderness encounters have both sides moving when they see each other, or it's something that would be obvious and asked about if they were adventuring on a smaller scale.


Your attitude really appears to be one of someone trying to screw the players over if they can't read your mind. Mind reading has nothing to do with it. The only players that get 'screwed over' are those that aren't making an attempt to pay attention.


And likewise the NPC's presenting info to PC's. With how little percentage of time that the players are 'in the world' compared to the characters. There is less of a chance of a player noticing that something is off than the character that is actually there and has lived in the area/culture for 20+ years. NPC's have a lot better 'chance' of realizing that something is off and 'might' need a sense motive/spot/search/listen check.

[quote]Give the players the benefit of the doubt and assume that the characters are halfway competant. A rogue that grew up on the street and has high sense motive, spot, and listen checks would always, intuitively, be scanning their surroundings, etc...Or they wouldn't have survived 18 years to reach 1st level.I'd expect a player of a rogue who grew up like that to play as such, and be on top of requesting perception and sense motive checks (Though not so bluntly) - especially because having an idea of what you're doing gives small bonuses. Even then - things changing still provokes unsolicited perception checks.


Think of this situation:

PC (Fighter): 'I swing my sword at the rogue. *rolls* I hit twice and do *rolls* 19 points of damage.'

DM: 'The rogue swings twice at you and *rolls* hits. He does *rolls a bunch of dice* 43 points of damage.'

PC: 'Why did he roll so many dice?'

DM: 'You didn't say you were also trying to avoid his attacks, so you don't get your Dex bonus. That made you easier to hit and he got his sneak attack damage as well.'

PC: ...

This is the same situation you are putting the players in with not allowing passive skill rolls for things.

Now, when I'm DM'ing, I know my players' passive skill bonsues, and roll them for the players when it has a potential of affecting the game.Armor class is not a Skill. Skills are active and solicited. Skills are not saves. Saves are reactive.

Also, the fighter is acknowledging the existence of the rogue and state of combat. Requiring perception checks keeps players invested in the act of exploration, as they're required to interact with or at least acknowledge the local environment. Also - players pay more attention to solicited information than infodumps. Spot checks require player investment, but are Free Actions.

Amphetryon
2013-09-03, 07:01 PM
They just happen to be free/non-actions. Outside of combat, you don't have 360o vision of everything around you. They do unless you're using the alternate Facing rules in 3.5 D&D.

Scow2
2013-09-03, 07:05 PM
They do unless you're using the alternate Facing rules in 3.5 D&D.Alternate Facing rules are for Combat.

Raimun
2013-09-03, 07:09 PM
It's okay if some enemies use really clever tactics... but only some of them.

With that I mean bosses that are plot critical and even then, only if it makes sense that the individual boss fights with clever tactics. It doesn't make sense if your "typical, run of the mill orc-chieftain" is suddenly like Napoleon but man-sized.

With all this, I don't mean that normal enemies should fight like idiots... unless they are idiots. :smalltongue:

Most important thing is that all the enemies do not have DM-level metaknowledge, even though they are played by the DM.

nedz
2013-09-03, 08:49 PM
I find it disgusting that playing D&D the Classic way is considered Wrong and Bad - without Greyhawking and Gygaxing, you're playing Sword and Sorcery Adventure, not D&D.

But even Gygax himself felt this was old, or at least basic play, as far back as '78 — hence AD&D.

navar100
2013-09-03, 09:26 PM
When I say the enemies retreat when the players are buffed, I don't mean simple bull's strength type stuff, I mean stuff which makes it impossible to the monsters to realistically do anything but die.

Invisibility against enemies with poor listen, flight against enemies without ranged weapons, spells which grant immunity to the enemies primary attack form, walls of stone / force which force the monsters to attack the party one at a time, or, like in the aboleth example, part water to make an aquatic enemy have to fight on dry land.

In these cases there is nothing the monsters can do except run away or die.



This is where I'm sympathizing with the players. The party buffs up. The bad guys run away. The party does not get to defeat them using their tactic of buffing because you denied them the victory by fiat.

Then . . .

The party encounters bad guys who are buffed up or just that awesome naturally. They bypass the encounter/run away. The bad guys follow the party, get to catch them, and smack them to kingdom come because they are buffed up/just that awesome naturally.

Lesson learned: Bad guys get to run away when outmatched never to be defeated because the DM says so. Party never gets to run away when outmatched always to be defeated because the DM says so.

Heads I win. Tails you lose.

Talakeal
2013-09-03, 10:48 PM
This is where I'm sympathizing with the players. The party buffs up. The bad guys run away. The party does not get to defeat them using their tactic of buffing because you denied them the victory by fiat.

Then . . .

The party encounters bad guys who are buffed up or just that awesome naturally. They bypass the encounter/run away. The bad guys follow the party, get to catch them, and smack them to kingdom come because they are buffed up/just that awesome naturally.

Lesson learned: Bad guys get to run away when outmatched never to be defeated because the DM says so. Party never gets to run away when outmatched always to be defeated because the DM says so.

Heads I win. Tails you lose.

You seem to be making a lot of baseless accusations here.

I never said that the PCs couldn't run away. Indeed, I can't recall a single time in my 20 years of gaming when I have had an enemy track down the PCs after they have retreated. IF I have ever done it, you can be sure that it was because the enemy had a higher movement speed or superior tracking abilities, not through "fiat".

Likewise, having an intelligent creature recognize that it can't hurt an enemy because of the plainly obvious and decide to retreat by using whatever method of locomotion it has under its disposal is not "fiat".

Also, saying the party is always defeated is the biggest overstatement I have ever heard. I would imagine the PCs have won over 90% of all adventures I have ever ran, and have defeated 90% of all encounters even in said mission. Calling a 90+% victory ratio always defeated is like calling Shaq a dwarf.

In fact, in the very mission I was using as an example the PCs ran away when they were losing a fight several times. Not ONCE did the enemies pursue them or even set up an ambush when the PCs returned. And the PCs did return and killed them all, except for the dragon whom they instead negotiated with instead of killing.

I DO NOT fudge rolls or alter the game world on the fly. Indeed, most of the flak I get is for not nerfing the encounters once the players get themselves in hot water and continuing to run the adventure straight. Accusing me of "declaring myself the winner through FIAT" is both incredibly demeaning and laughably false.

Equinox
2013-09-03, 10:58 PM
No. The spot skill is entirely passive. A player cannot actively use the spot skill. That's not entirely true. On one hand, the DM is supposed to give you a passive Spot (or Listen) check any time there's something worthwhile spotting or hearing. On the other hand, you can get a proactive Spot or Listen check as a move action. It's all in the PHB.

Regardless, Scow2 is all wrong when he claims characters can only get a Spot check by their players proactively asking for it.

Rhynn
2013-09-04, 04:36 AM
So if your DM is very charismatic and can bluff easily, the characters should be at a disadvantage. By this, you are doing the DM versus Player rather than the DM trying to challenge the players' characters.

I absolutely try to challenge my players when I run games. (Part of that challenge is that they have to manage their PCs well - starting from creating them and from composing their party.) The characters aren't real, the players are - the players are the ones who get the feeling of triumph when they overcome adversity and challenges.

It's a game; it's supposed to be a challenge. I don't get this notion that it's some kind of mildly-interactive story told by the GM to the players as a participating audience. Nonsense - we're all playing the game, with the GM playing "opposite" to the players, trying to create "fair" challenges. (In my case, that pretty much means pulling out all the stops in simulating an environment that is consistent and realistic, allowing the players both to interact with and understand it, especially in forming reasonable predictions about the future.)

I think at the heart of this is the notion that the players are "supposed to win." That was not, as far as I can tell, the thinking of the original D&D DMs - they and their players all knew and accepted as a part of the game that sometimes the players lose. Sometimes, the PCs die - sometimes the whole party gets wiped out.

TL;DR: games should be challenging (that's what makes them fun) and you don't always win when you play.

TL;DR MkII: What Scow2 said (all of it).


No, you want to use advanced strategy. Basic tactics would be trying to set up flanks in the combat, move wounded guys back to get healed, drop a fireball on unengaged guys.

Anything lasting more than one 'combat' is dealing with strategy, not tactics. And using maneuver and guerilla warfare is up there with advanced strategy, not basic strategy.

I see you've retreated to pedantry, the last citadel of the outgunned debater.

FWIW, tactics is "the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle" or "the art and science of the detailed direction and control of movement or manoeuvre of forces in battle to achieve an aim or task." An ambush is, indeed, tactics, as is hit-and-run. In strict military use, tactics are what division-sized and smaller units use to achieve goals; strategy is what a whole campaign has. You made up your own definition (with which you engaged in pointless pedantry that gets at no actual point - a poor tactic!).


No. The spot skill is entirely passive. A player cannot actively use the spot skill. The active version (when you are looking for something) is search. Listen can be used passively or actively. Your example about picking your friend out of a crowd without looking...A character with high spot would be able to do that. They've trained themselves to notice things without even trying to and to rapidly process that information. Just like a character that takes weapon focus has trained themselves to be more adept at bypassing an attempted parry by their opponent.

You could like at least look at the rules before making these assertions.

From the 3.5 SRD, under Spot:
"Action: Varies. Every time you have a chance to spot something in a reactive manner you can make a Spot check without using an action. Trying to spot something you failed to see previously is a move action. To read lips, you must concentrate for a full minute before making a Spot check, and you can’t perform any other action (other than moving at up to half speed) during this minute."

As to the specific scenario: the dragon, with Hide as a class skill, was in darkness (total concealment). Darkvision was presumably not an issue at 100+ ft., since Talakeal bothered to mention the darkness. The most generous interpretation we can have here is that the dragon would have had a Hide check result of 40+ (and quite possibly 60+), which is presumably why Talakeal says he didn't bother rolling Spot for the PCs. A more reasonable approach, IMO, would be "well you can't Spot things in complete darkness if you can't see in the darkness."

skyth
2013-09-04, 05:05 AM
I think at the heart of this is the notion that the players are "supposed to win." That was not, as far as I can tell, the thinking of the original D&D DMs - they and their players all knew and accepted as a part of the game that sometimes the players lose. Sometimes, the PCs die - sometimes the whole party gets wiped out.

That sometimes the party loses and everyone dies is irrelevant to the discussion. What the discussion about is about FAIR challenges.



TL;DR MkII: What Scow2 said (all of it).

What's funny is the quote that you use later disproves his statement that spots are not automatically passive.




I see you've retreated to pedantry, the last citadel of the outgunned debater.

FWIW, tactics is "the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle" or "the art and science of the detailed direction and control of movement or manoeuvre of forces in battle to achieve an aim or task." An ambush is, indeed, tactics, as is hit-and-run. In strict military use, tactics are what division-sized and smaller units use to achieve goals; strategy is what a whole campaign has. You made up your own definition (with which you engaged in pointless pedantry that gets at no actual point - a poor tactic!).

Pointless pedantry to point out that he's using advanced strategy rather than just basic tactics and this is the reason that the players might be upset?




You could like at least look at the rules before making these assertions.

From the 3.5 SRD, under Spot:
"Action: Varies. Every time you have a chance to spot something in a reactive manner you can make a Spot check without using an action. Trying to spot something you failed to see previously is a move action. To read lips, you must concentrate for a full minute before making a Spot check, and you can’t perform any other action (other than moving at up to half speed) during this minute."



Funny how any time you have a chance to spot something, you automatically get it...Doesn't require the player to ask for it. However, listen checks work the same way...And the party wasn't allowed a listen check either.

Bulhakov
2013-09-04, 05:06 AM
As I said, I normally would remind the players of something like this beforehand. But the players had already been telling me to "shut up" or accused me of "cheating" the whole session, and so I didn't feel like giving them hints and was instead playing the situation totally straight.

Giving hints is, imo, "nice" behavior, but not giving hints is not "mean" behavior, it is, what I would consider lawful neutral DMing.



There seems to be so much bad blood between you and the players I'm surprised you even bothered playing. The minute I would hear "shut up" or accusations of cheating from my players I would stop the game, and clear things up OOC. I would not resume playing until me and the players were back on good terms, everyone was in the mood to play and all accusations were cleared up.

As for "lawful neutral DMing" - withholding a crucial rules reminder that would drastically alter the player choices if they heard it, for me borders on lawful evil. But I guess I'm just a neutral good DM, that bends the rules a lot so that everyone has as much fun as possible.

Rhynn
2013-09-04, 08:45 AM
What's funny is the quote that you use later disproves his statement that spots are not automatically passive.

:smallsigh: Everything Scow2 had said regarding the things I said above "what he said." One of his posts basically said the exact same things I said in the first part of my post. I suppose I could have been clearer, but given that I was reading and responding to something like 20 posts, I'm not terribly bothered by it. I rather thought the fact it was a TL;DR was clear enough, but I obviously gave you something more to be pedantic about.


Pointless pedantry to point out that he's using advanced strategy rather than just basic tactics and this is the reason that the players might be upset?

I'm not going to quote myself, but again, the words "tactics" and "strategy" do not mean what you claim they mean, either in a dictionary or in military usage. Your pedantry is incorrect as well as pointless.

Hit-and-run, retreats, and following an enemy that ignores you are not advanced tactics, they are absolutely basic sense and frequently explicitly advised. Module after module I've read and run has told me to use these in various encounters, as if I didn't have the basic sense to think that maybe intelligent creatures don't want to get butchered, or the respect for my players to expect them to have a little sense about how they play.


Funny how any time you have a chance to spot something, you automatically get it...Doesn't require the player to ask for it. However, listen checks work the same way...And the party wasn't allowed a listen check either.

So both you and Scow2 should have read the rules.

Also, there is no Listen check for hearing someone who is not moving or otherwise actively making noise. (Breathing does not appear to count.) If the dragon had been moving while hiding, it would have made a Move Silently check opposed by Listen checks, the dragon's result likely in the 40s (class skill, probably 20+ HD, +10 for distance, an average roll of 10.5), and thus likely outside of the party's ability to make, there being no such thing as auto-success on 20 for skill checks and Talakeal having stated they had crap for perception skills.

But it's okay. I'm sure arguing a bit more about irrelevant semantics will prove you right!

Segev
2013-09-04, 10:03 AM
I know that I, as a player, would appreciate that a DM at the LEAST give me some feedback before I try to implement my plans if it looks like something obvious (to him) in enemy tactics would make what I'm doing kind-of stupid.

If, every time I and my party buff up, the enemy retreat, can we pursue them and take them out while they flee? Or is there some unwritten rule or unspoken assumption that prevents this? If I'm going to use clever tactics to change the battlefield so that the enemy don't want to face me, I'd appreciate at least a "roll an Int (or Wis, whichever the DM thinks more appropriate) check... okay, just to point out that they can follow you while waiting out your spell, and you might have to deal with them later under even less favorable conditions" sort of warning.

Whether your players are "idiots" or not, it sounds like they don't have the same grasp of the situations you do. Talking to them and helping them - particularly if any of them have applicable skills or stats - to foresee consequences and encouraging them to ask questions or offer a few suggestions for solutions to obvious problems is good.

I get that they don't want so much advice that it feels like you're playing their characters for them. If it seems like nothing they ever think of could possibly work because you see how it all would be thwarted, so only the ideas you come up with to suggest to them work, then you may need to rethink what "intelligent" enemies would do. It might be that you're railroading on a subconscious level, assuming that enemies will only be defeated in the Right Way.

I don't know that for sure; only you can examine it. But if your players spin their wheels for half an hour with repeated ideas that would all have obvious flaws to your analysis, and they do this on every encounter where they try to do anything but sigh and just charge in and let your NPCs be the ones that dictate the terms of the fight, it's a warning sign. It could be that they suck. I don't know how to help them if that's true and they can't or won't learn better. But it could also be that you're using DM control of the world and perfect knowledge of their plans to nullify anything you didn't think of.

So, if you find yourself having to spell out every tactic the PCs should use, there's a problem somewhere. If, on the other hand, they keep being "tactical" in ways that your responses (which seem obvious to you) nullify their tactics or cause the situation to be worse when the re-engagement happens, you should probably be pointing out how things will likely go, and ask them if they've got any plans to push it a step further.

If the orcs run from flying, invisible PCs and wait for the spells to wear off, why aren't the flying, invisible PCs pursuing them and picking them off while they flee?

Neoxenok
2013-09-04, 10:35 AM
Hi! I hope I'm not too late to the party, but I looked at your first post and I'd like to give my thoughts on the matter as a longtime DM myself.


As anyone who follows my threads knows, I have a long history of players who throw temper tantrums when anything goes wrong. However, I noticed that a common thread in 90% of my problem cases is that people are mad because I play the enemies intelligently. For example:
I'm always upfront with my players about how I run my games and believe me - I enjoy and go well out of my way to use monsters and NPCs to their fullest. This is especially true for intelligent or knowledgeable enemies that would know their own strengths and weaknesses (moreso if they have foreknowledge of the PC's abilities/tactics).

I'm not a perfect DM and I've made mistakes, but the fun of this game is in the challenge of it. I don't understand people who play a game like this with so many options but they only enjoy challenges that involve enemies with higher ACs and hit point totals.


All of these are considered "**** moves" by my players, people outside the game who I have talked to in real life, and some people on this forum, have told that it is "cheating" that I don't ALWAYS play my monsters as super smart. That if I have a tribe of orcs who will fight toe to toe against PCs, but run away and get help if they encounter a group of flying invisible PCs who they can't hurt I am punishing the players for creativity and lulling them into a state of complacency. That if the orcs are capable of running away and getting help they should do it immediately rather than risk a straight fight.
Well, I find it makes sense to play monsters and NPCs according to their abilities. If you're giving 8 int/wis/cha orcs the ability to overcome complicated challenges, then I would consider that an issue.
I'm not saying you do this or that overwhelmed orcs need an 18 int to realizes they should call for help, but I am saying that if your players have a different sense of what their capabilities actually are, then that at least warrants a discussion with your players.


Meanwhile in my game the party encountered an equal CR green dragon in a forest. It used its casting ability to buff itself and debuff the party before engaging, and then used its camouflage abilities to attack the weakest members of the party with hit and run tactics. It was nearly a TPK, although the party did manage to overcome it in the end. I was told The players got frustrated and said I made them feel like idiots.
I think I have a better understanding of what's going on. I've had this problem before and I even had issues with this up until only recently.
I won't go into a long-winded story, but let's just say that I often confused "challenging" with "overpowering" when it comes to encounters - even random and inconsequential encounters. I just felt like I was giving my players too easy a time if they came out of a combat with all of their hit points and resources. I didn't feel like they were having fun that way.
I was wrong though. Players do have fun with opponents less powerful than they are and they can be challenged by them without necessarily being in a life-or-death situation.
Now, those situations can be fun, but if you're risking their PC's lives in every or most encounters, then it just becomes stressful and not fun at all to feel like your character is only succeeding by the skin of their teeth.

I wouldn't personally enjoy any game like the one you described where the PCs walk through powerful encounters with dumb opponents, but players can find more ways to have fun in an easy game than an absurdly difficult one.

I don't recommend at all changing the way you DM but I do recommend that in future games, give your players an easy time when it doesn't matter and try to challenge them with weaker opponents that use these tactics. Even if it's still an encounter they'll have a 99% chance of winning, it can still be fun for all of you that way - make the most out of your enemies with CRs several points lower than the PC's and force them to use their brain to walk through the encounter without forcing them to use their brain just to survive with a few hit points.

You can challenge them with more powerful opponents but only when it really matters.

After all, you're the storyteller but the players are the main characters of your story. They should be able to feel like what they're doing matters, no matter how gritty or fantastical the game is.

Rhynn
2013-09-04, 10:37 AM
If the orcs run from flying, invisible PCs and wait for the spells to wear off, why aren't the flying, invisible PCs pursuing them and picking them off while they flee?

I think I can field this:

Because the players are too busy crying foul, or they're just too plain dumb. Have you been reading Talakeal's descriptions of the players and what they do?

There's a whole heck of a lot of negative assumptions, when there is, as far as I can tell, every indication Talakeal would welcome more planning and interactivity and engagement with the game and its events from the players, but they're dead set on trying to have some kind of bad-video-game experience (I think comparing this to just video games is very unfair, given how tactical and demanding good games can be - just in the D&D genre we've got Baldur's Gate 2 and Icewind Dale which often kicked my ass for not thinking enough).

Segev
2013-09-04, 10:59 AM
I think I can field this:

Because the players are too busy crying foul, or they're just too plain dumb. Have you been reading Talakeal's descriptions of the players and what they do?

That's why I tried not to level unequivocal accusations. I've recently been on the player-side of what sounds like a similar experience, and the problem I found was that literally nothing we did worked, and we wouldn't find out that there were "obvious flaws" until after we'd committed ourselves. He wasn't gloating about it; he in fact didn't seem to realize there was a problem until we were obviously frustrated. And then he was upset because we weren't being fair to him. Which may be true, but giving feedback didn't work too well, either.

Neither side seemed to be able to express to the other what they expected from it. When we tried to explain, he'd respond either by asking what we wanted or assuming we wanted cake-walks. When we tried to ask, he'd say he had no expectations except a "realistic world" (wherein he'd get frustrated if we tried to get resources).

He wasn't trying to run a crapsack world or be unfair to us. I understand another party is having a blast in another game he's running. It was just incompatible expectations that we couldn't adequately communicate to him. But I couldn't get him to express what it was he saw as the flaws in our plans because that would be "metagaming."

And hence...I can feel for the players' frustrations.

(Once, we did try to pursue...and the guy spent more potions than our party's combined wealth could have amassed and made Hide checks we couldn't beat in order to get away.

Another time, we tried to lure things out to attack a fortified area, because it was described in terms we knew we couldn't handle. And the DM was clearly unhappy making the enemies respond at all how we expected rather than "intelligently" - that is, not coming out, and not engaging in our hidden-trap area because they saw we'd turned to finally face them.

While that might be "intelligent," it also means that we literally could not arrange a fight to be "on our terms," because any effort to do so was countered by these goblins reacting "intelligently." And they had us grotesquely out-numbered.

I'm guessing we should have been able to take them on head-on or something, but given how other fights had gone...)


Anyway. I am not accusing this DM of malice, just being new and having different expectations he couldn't express to us. I don't accuse Talakeal of any malice or bad habits, but I hope to offer advice if it might help him communicate better with his players, speaking from what might be the same place they were coming from.

Then again, maybe not. I only have this thread to go on, so far, as no, I haven't read his others. ^^;

Daimbert
2013-09-04, 11:42 AM
I absolutely try to challenge my players when I run games. (Part of that challenge is that they have to manage their PCs well - starting from creating them and from composing their party.) The characters aren't real, the players are - the players are the ones who get the feeling of triumph when they overcome adversity and challenges.

It's a game; it's supposed to be a challenge. I don't get this notion that it's some kind of mildly-interactive story told by the GM to the players as a participating audience. Nonsense - we're all playing the game, with the GM playing "opposite" to the players, trying to create "fair" challenges. (In my case, that pretty much means pulling out all the stops in simulating an environment that is consistent and realistic, allowing the players both to interact with and understand it, especially in forming reasonable predictions about the future.)

I think at the heart of this is the notion that the players are "supposed to win." That was not, as far as I can tell, the thinking of the original D&D DMs - they and their players all knew and accepted as a part of the game that sometimes the players lose. Sometimes, the PCs die - sometimes the whole party gets wiped out.

I think this attitude -- and the confusions around it -- might be a big part of the problem, as it sets up a "GM versus the players" type of mindset. The GM is supposed to challenge the players, sure, but isn't playing against them. The challenge is supposed to be making the game fun for everyone, just as the story does and all the other elements do. It's not supposed to be the GM trying to make the players lose, but the GM trying to make the players have fun, and have fun doing that. The degree, then, of challenge and story and everything else will depend on the players and GM, with some focusing on stories and making the challenge less, and some focusing on more challenge and less story, and some trying to do all of it.

But to me, the general idea of challenge is this: if the players pay attention to what's going on, make reasonable decisions, take actions as per their characters and abilities, and don't get really bad rolls, they should pretty much always win. Yes, it is possible to lose, and yes it is possible to die or have the entire party die, but it should always be either due to bad decisions made by the players when they should have known better, or bad dice rolls that mean that they tried something that would have worked but just didn't pull it off. And it should never, ever be the case that they fail, lose or die because they had to pull off a specific tactic to make it work that they didn't or couldn't have thought of, and it should never be the case that they lose the game -- a battle is fine -- because they aren't as good tacticians as the GM or the GM-generated opponents. Again, you don't want the set the GM's abilities against that of the players; the GM should be as good as necessary to challenge them but not so good that the players can't win as long as they play to a reasonably competent level as per their own abilities.

Now, in this specific case it definitely sounds like different playing styles causing issues, and the players and the GM wanting different things. But if the GM is a lot more clever than the players -- and that seems plausible in this case -- you can get into issues where the players feel that they have to be far more clever than the GM just to win, and they just aren't that clever. Taking the abeloth example, they may have felt that they came up with a clever way to deal with that problem ... only to have the GM take that away from them. And the same thing could apply to the ghost: a clever solution that the GM simply thinks or rules out because he knows more or is more clever than they are.

I, personally, have come to believe -- mostly through modding Arkham Horror PBF games -- that the best sort of games, to me, are games where the GM is not in an antagonistic relationship with the players, but is instead simply giving the story, giving the challenges, keeping hidden information hidden, and letting the game go on, allowing the players to surprise the GM while ensuring that things stay enough on track for everyone to have fun.

(Note that the main reason I don't play RPGs solo while I will play AH solo is because I can't play an RPG without knowing the hidden information, while I can in AH).

Rhynn
2013-09-04, 12:06 PM
I think this attitude -- and the confusions around it -- might be a big part of the problem, as it sets up a "GM versus the players" type of mindset. The GM is supposed to challenge the players, sure, but isn't playing against them. The challenge is supposed to be making the game fun for everyone, just as the story does and all the other elements do. It's not supposed to be the GM trying to make the players lose, but the GM trying to make the players have fun, and have fun doing that.

Yeah, I pretty much explicitly disagree. If I'm playing the opposition, then I'm against the players - I'm not trying to make them win or let them win, I'm trying to play somebody doing their damnedest to beat them.


But to me, the general idea of challenge is this: if the players pay attention to what's going on, make reasonable decisions, take actions as per their characters and abilities, and don't get really bad rolls, they should pretty much always win.

Yeah, that right there. The expectation that the PCs should win.

What does "bad decisions" cover? Do you mean in a tactical sense or a strategic sense? Can the "bad decision" be "engaging this enemy at all" or "going into this place" ?

Players absolutely should be able to lose "the game" (a session of play). A big part of the awesomeness of old-school dungeons came from the very fact that you weren't guaranteed to succeed. When you had successes in a dungeon that regularly claimed the lives of PCs or even entire parties, it was awesome.

I've lost sessions as a player, and my players have lost sessions as players. It's all part of the game. I honestly don't understand why RPGs should be a game where the players always win.


Taking the abeloth example, they may have felt that they came up with a clever way to deal with that problem ... only to have the GM take that away from them.

Oh, come on. "Let's use a temporary spell to bypass a combat encounter. No way is leaving enemies at our back going to backfire!"

If the players are so intentionally oblivious to basic tactical considerations, and won't learn from experience, there's only so much the DM can do.


I, personally, have come to believe -- mostly through modding Arkham Horror PBF games -- that the best sort of games, to me, are games where the GM is not in an antagonistic relationship with the players, but is instead simply giving the story, giving the challenges, keeping hidden information hidden, and letting the game go on, allowing the players to surprise the GM while ensuring that things stay enough on track for everyone to have fun.

That's a type of game, all right. Storygaming is fine for people who like it, but many people enjoy being challenged instead.


Anyway. I am not accusing this DM of malice, just being new and having different expectations he couldn't express to us. I don't accuse Talakeal of any malice or bad habits, but I hope to offer advice if it might help him communicate better with his players, speaking from what might be the same place they were coming from.

Then again, maybe not. I only have this thread to go on, so far, as no, I haven't read his others. ^^;

There is no hyperbole involved when I say that, based on all his threads, Talakeal's players are the #3 worst people to play with I have ever heard of, after LankyBugger's infamous DM and the one who stabbed him.

Daimbert
2013-09-04, 12:39 PM
Yeah, I pretty much explicitly disagree. If I'm playing the opposition, then I'm against the players - I'm not trying to make them win or let them win, I'm trying to play somebody doing their damnedest to beat them.

Why are you trying to play those people, as those people, as opposed to putting characters who are, in fact, trying to do that? And do you agree that you shouldn't introduce a no-win scenario into the game without that being a way to introduce something else? So, basically, that there should never be a case where the players simply cannot win? Because your NPCs would certainly want to have that, and as the GM you have the ability to create one, but it would be a fair charge that it would be unfair for you to do so.

That's my main point here: that as a GM you should give them encounters that challenge them, make them use their abilities and intelligence to get past ... but that there is in fact a way for them to beat the challenge with the abilities of the players and of their characters.


Yeah, that right there. The expectation that the PCs should win.

What does "bad decisions" cover? Do you mean in a tactical sense or a strategic sense? Can the "bad decision" be "engaging this enemy at all" or "going into this place" ?

A bad decision covers any decision they make that they had the knowledge and ability to tell wasn't going to work, but that they made anyway. Maybe they choose the riskier option and the dice go against them, maybe they forgot about an ability -- although just forgetting would be something where the GM might want to prompt them about -- or any number of other ways they can end up making a decision that doesn't work. Again, how forgiving the game is of bad decisions depends on the GM and players and how much challenge they want, but that's essentially how that works.


Players absolutely should be able to lose "the game" (a session of play). A big part of the awesomeness of old-school dungeons came from the very fact that you weren't guaranteed to succeed. When you had successes in a dungeon that regularly claimed the lives of PCs or even entire parties, it was awesome.

Well, that would be "awesomeness to you", but again I did say that they should be able to lose, but that if they play reasonably well, they should always win. A good GM should not expect the players to have skills that they don't have, or skills their characters don't have, or knowledge they don't have in order to win. There has to be a way out that doesn't require mind reading of the GM or scouring the rulebook, a way out that a reasonable amount of thinking should come up with, appropriately foreshadowed if required. So, no no-win scenarios, and no scenarios that require the players to think as well as the GM.


I've lost sessions as a player, and my players have lost sessions as players. It's all part of the game. I honestly don't understand why RPGs should be a game where the players always win.

And I never said that. I predicated with "If the players do the right things, they will almost always win". There HAS to be right things to do, especially if the game has any random elements involved.


Oh, come on. "Let's use a temporary spell to bypass a combat encounter. No way is leaving enemies at our back going to backfire!"

If the players are so intentionally oblivious to basic tactical considerations, and won't learn from experience, there's only so much the DM can do.

Maybe, but in this case they tried to find a way to avoid combat, and then had combat thrust on them anyway. Should they have known this? Probably. But that isn't going to change how they feel, which is all I commented on.


That's a type of game, all right. Storygaming is fine for people who like it, but many people enjoy being challenged instead.

I don't see this as mutually exclusive. It's at most a matter of degree, but I do think you can have both.

prufock
2013-09-04, 01:28 PM
Ok, so let me give a brief rundown of the last adventure I ran to show you what I mean:
Sounds like a fun adventure. I'm tempted to run it for my own party to see what a halfway competent group could do with it. What level were they?


* At this point in the description I was told "Can you shut up and just let us kill stuff?" And so I did, the party never grasping that they could free the soldiers from mind control and gain an ally or thinking to look for the nixies.
Rudeness gets punished. So they miss the part about the 60' deep pit filled with black pudding in the middle of the room. Oh well, sucks for them I guess.


Rather than fight them the party casts a part water spell and the aboleths skulk at the edge of the water and follow the PCs.
This is actually clever, but you gave them a hint that the aboleths would be back, so they have no one to blame but themselves.


"What grows taller once you take the head off?" The PCs are stumped. When they give up I tell them the answer (a pillow) and am told I cheated because pillows are not alive and therefore do not "grow".
Your players are idiots. Riddles are supposed to use tricky wordplay, that's how they work, and grow to mean "increase in size" is definitely a valid use of the word. Besides, it's a bonus treasure, not a requirement to advance the game.


The mage eventually casts control undead on the ghost and the ghost stops fighting.
Nothing in the control undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/controlUndead.htm) spell says they follow you unless you command them to do so. If the player didn't tell the ghost to follow, it doesn't follow. If the player is unwilling to go back and find out why, that's his own problem. Whiny little brat, isn't he?


The wizard decides to teleport the party out. The artifact (which is intelligent) is unwilling and remains behind.
While the players didn't know it was intelligent, nothing about this is unfair.


The players are all furious and tell me that I either cheated or intentionally went out of my way to screw them over by playing every enemy in the dungeon as a complete jerk.
Your players are whiny little brats who are quick to accuse you of cheating, are rude to you, and insult you for no good reason. You have the gall to play enemies as if they were hostile?! Seriously, do they expect enemies to be helpful? My advice is FIND NEW PLAYERS.

Amphetryon
2013-09-04, 01:38 PM
Alternate Facing rules are for Combat.

I am aware. Where are the rules you were citing, please.

Rhynn
2013-09-04, 02:28 PM
Why are you trying to play those people, as those people, as opposed to putting characters who are, in fact, trying to do that?

I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence.


And do you agree that you shouldn't introduce a no-win scenario into the game without that being a way to introduce something else? So, basically, that there should never be a case where the players simply cannot win?

I don't agree with that at all, no. If the players in a cyberpunk game decide to take on the US military, there's just no way they're going to win. If, at 1st level, they decide to enter the Dungeon of Horrible Doom, they're not going to win.

And, in general, it's up to the players to make the scenario winnable. I know mine are quite capable of this.

A world, simulated, will have no-win scenarios aplenty. The players have to pick their battles, both literal and metaphorical, and work for their victories. Sometimes, victory isn't an option, but survival is.


A bad decision covers any decision they make that they had the knowledge and ability to tell wasn't going to work, but that they made anyway.

My stance is that it's not my job to spoon-feed them information, either. If they don't scout, research, or otherwise get information, that's their problem.


but that if they play reasonably well, they should always win.

"Reasonably well" sounds like a pretty low standard of challenge to me. I generally think "reasonably well" should get them survival, sometimes victory.

As I said, you prefer storygaming.


A good GM should not expect the players to have skills that they don't have, or skills their characters don't have, or knowledge they don't have in order to win.

Actually, what a good GM won't do is come up with single-solution problems.

For instance, I've got a castle with a medusa in it. This is a 1st-level adventure. There are obvious clues: statues of living beings, many smashed, around the castle. The medusa knows all the secret passages, and will viciously use them to attack the party and retreat. All mirrors (beaten silver) in the castle have been broken or are covered in tarnish from the sewer gas formed in the flooded basements; the wizard's laboratory contains spirits of salt (mild hydrochloric acid, which can clean the tarnish off) as well as spirit of nitre (concentrated nitric acid, which will cause sewer gas to explode on contact). If a player knows about cleaning tarnish, or if a character has proficiency with alchemy and the player asks the right questions ("do I know how to clean tarnish off silver?"), they can figure out how to clean the mirrors; they could experiment and discover (possibly after some accidents) how to make things blow up, including medusas; they could just hike back to town and bring some mirrors; they could just find the medusa's lair and defeat her there.

It's an intentionally hard, challenging scenario, and it's perfectly possible the party will suffer dreadful losses, but there's many ways to approach the problem.

That's good challenge design.


Maybe, but in this case they tried to find a way to avoid combat, and then had combat thrust on them anyway. Should they have known this? Probably. But that isn't going to change how they feel, which is all I commented on.

Unfortunately, feelings aren't valid just because you (passive you) are feeling them. You might not feel that great about losing a game of poker, either, but you've got to suck it up and go on with it. If winning is what your enjoyment of a game is predicated on, you're going to be very poor company for gaming.

Playing a game of tactical combat (obviously the party's preference, too), you should probably at least make a token effort at tactics and being good at combat. Like not blithely leaving enemies behind your back, held at bay by what you explicitly know to be a limited-duration spell.

Seriously, if a player cast a fire wall to keep some goblins at bay, and the goblins join the fray again after the spell's duration ends, is that unfair? No? Then why is the part water scenario unfair just because the players thought they'd dealt with the enemy?

Really, these specific players' feelings of entitlement in particular are not valid at all. I can't see how anyone could read these threads and (assuming Talakeal isn't a giant mean evil liar) not see that they're entitled, whiny, and cry foul as soon as things aren't easy and everything doesn't work out perfectly.

Talakeal
2013-09-04, 02:33 PM
@prufock:

I am not playing standard 3.5 but rather a homebrew variant similar to e6. They are roughly the equivelent of a low op level 17.

They actually did know the artifact was intelligent, they just assumed it would be willing.

New players is a high priority. We had an incident during the last gaming session that kind of soured the game for everyone and the game is on indefinate hiatus.

Also, my brother has since been playing video games with several members of my former group. He says they play video games the exact same way as tabletop games. Insist they are infalible, come up with convuluted plans that have glaring holes they wont recognize, and then blame their team mates for incompetence or their opponents for cheating if they lose and get into horrible name calling and screaming fights.

Talakeal
2013-09-04, 02:41 PM
Really, these specific players' feelings of entitlement in particular are not valid at all. I can't see how anyone could read these threads and (assuming Talakeal isn't a giant mean evil liar) not see that they're entitled, whiny, and cry foul as soon as things aren't easy and everything doesn't work out perfectly.

To be fair, while i am not a liar (though i am sure one of my players would vehemently disagree) you are only hearing my side of the story and it is all told from my perspective. I would imagine a lot of people are just putting the face of their own personal "power tripping" dm onto my posts and interpreting it as such to compensate.

It is amazing how different the same game can look from different sides. I remember one time a new player joined the group and the other pcs caught him up on the previous adventures. While everything they told him was factually true, the motivations and mood behind it were completely different to what i had been picturing when i described it.

Regardless, i am not a saint, and i do occasionally do things that are overly harsh. For example giving into the request to shut up when i knew it would deny them valuable information was a bit spiteful and i shouldnt have done it, although i hope most of you can understand why i did.

Rhynn
2013-09-04, 03:05 PM
To be fair, while i am not a liar (though i am sure one of my players would vehemently disagree) you are only hearing my side of the story and it is all told from my perspective. I would imagine a lot of people are just putting the face of their own personal "power tripping" dm onto my posts and interpreting it as such to compensate.

That does seem to be the case, yeah.

Your stories need to be more outrageous, I think. I don't recall there being any great doubt about That Lanky Bugger's stories... were you ever stabbed by a player, maybe? :smallamused:

Talakeal
2013-09-04, 03:07 PM
That does seem to be the case, yeah.

Your stories need to be more outrageous, I think. I don't recall there being any great doubt about That Lanky Bugger's stories... were you ever stabbed by a player, maybe? :smallamused:

Well, i am told that a knife was drawn during that last catastrophic session, but that was after i had left.

The Glyphstone
2013-09-04, 03:19 PM
That does seem to be the case, yeah.

Your stories need to be more outrageous, I think. I don't recall there being any great doubt about That Lanky Bugger's stories... were you ever stabbed by a player, maybe? :smallamused:

I was actually re-reading those threads, and there was in fact some doubt about if the 3rd story - the stabbing - was the actual Lanky Bugger or not, since it was a new account. I don't think we ever actually found out for certain one way or the other.

Karoht
2013-09-04, 04:35 PM
As anyone who follows my threads knows, I have a long history of players who throw temper tantrums when anything goes wrong. However, I noticed that a common thread in 90% of my problem cases is that people are mad because I play the enemies intelligently.I have both used these tactics on NPC's and PC's alike, and been on the receiving end. Most of the time the issue comes into play when the NPC's can make a tactic work, reliably, but the PC's can't without there being any kind of reasonable explanation. Here are some thoughts.

Having enemies use hit and run tactics.
Parties which complain about these tactics tend to not have the ability to use them in kind. In spite of absurdly high Stealth checks, Invisibility, teleportation, etc, it somehow seems to never work. Usually due to DM Fiat.

Have the enemies use stealth and ambush the party.
I'm on watch, I have all day Trueseeing, along with other methods of detection like Tremor sense. I can see in the dark just fine, and the camp is well lit because light is a cantrip and fire is cheap. I never roll below a 15, my perception skill is maxed out, and wisdom is my primary stat. We have bear traps and tripwires around the camp, and several alarm spells.
Suddenly, a Stealth guy ambushes me. I get dropped in the surprise round. And the DM is 100% at a loss for explanation, or his math is poor. When it stinks this bad, it's pretty cheesy. Probably DM Fiat again.

Have enemies run away when the players buff up or fortify an area and then attack them later when they have lost the protection.
I'm making a few assumptions as to what you are refering to here. Bear with me.
Players could set up Tuckers Kobolds and rarely actually have it work, yet Tuckers Kobolds are out there waiting for them. Always seems weird that the enemies can be smart and prepare but no matter how smart/prepared the party is they can never get it to work for them.

Have enemies use terrain to their advantages.
Unless you happen to be a monster that ignores the terrain, it often feels like you have no choice but suck or suck less. IE-Winter terrain such as deep snow. VS Ice Elementals who move around without issue. Now sure, there are items which can make this easier on a player, even mundane stuff. When it happens to you at levels 1-3 where your wealth is crap or you have no spells to offer you any assistance, that's when it becomes irritating. Mind you, terrain problems are usually most severe against low level parties.

Have enemy monsters use spellcasting as buffs.
Buffs are big, but not THAT big, unless the spellcasting they have access to is out of line. IE-Level 1-5 dungeon, monsters who have scrolls of True Seeing to see through your illusions or invisibility.
When it is really annoying is that you have monsters who start buffing somehow when you are 3 doors down, and therefore have 3 doors worth of perception check penalties to even hear you coming, let alone know that you are adventurers and not fellow orcs on guard in a dungeon, and somehow burn through thousands of gold worth of scrolls (probably your intended loot I might add) to buff themselves to absurdity. And then get the drop on you as you come through the door.

When the players bypass a monster on the way into the dungeon and have it either follow them deeper in or wait for them to come back out.
Enemies who call for help.
I've never understood the issue with stuff like this. If you leave an enemy at your back, you deserve a knife in the back. That's an adventuring motto for a reason.

Villains who don't make every mistake on the evil overlord list.
Sometimes the commonality of the villian is what makes them relateable. Sometimes the tropes make them poor villians. Hit and miss that, sometimes.

Enemies who use social skills to lie to the players or convince neutral NPCs to help them.When my Bard who's specialized into Diplo/Bluffomancy and can never get it to work, but some schmuck NPC makes it work? Then I have a problem. Especially if it is handwaved with "well I rolled for it, he rolled really well."



All of these are considered "**** moves" by my players, people outside the game who I have talked to in real life, and some people on this forum, have told that it is "cheating" that I don't ALWAYS play my monsters as super smart.Some players might see it as DM Fiat rather than actual smart play or preparation. Fiat is usually viewed as cheating. Just a possible perspective, is all.


Meanwhile in my game the party encountered an equal CR green dragon in a forest. It used its casting ability to buff itself and debuff the party before engaging, and then used its camouflage abilities to attack the weakest members of the party with hit and run tactics. It was nearly a TPK, although the party did manage to overcome it in the end. I was told The players got frustrated and said I made them feel like idiots.If there was no way for them to fight back (no way to see through the camo/stealth, no way to figure out where it was, no tool they had was effective) then it could be seen as Fiat without properly understanding the mechanics.



So, in summary, should DMs turn off their brains when playing monsters? Is it cheating for a DM to only play as intelligently as the situation demands rather than playing all enemies with an equal level of competence?

Am I a huge jerk for running smart enemies? Are my players just idiots and whiners? Is the answer somewhere in between? Or are these simply two incompatible play styles and I need to find a likeminded group in the future?IMO, it's only unfair if the same tactics can't be used to the players advantage as well, because of reasons which are not 100% watertight.

It's like the Sleetstorm + Snowsight combo. When I had enemies use it, the players whined until I pointed out that these were spells that most of the party could access. The truly boorish members of the party complained about it anyway, while the smart ones put the tactic to the test the very next combat.

Daimbert
2013-09-04, 04:55 PM
I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence.

Why are YOU playing as those characters who are trying to kill the heroes, as opposed to simply CREATING characters who are trying to do that, while you are simply trying to toss out challenges and story and whatever for your players? It's not you against the players, or at least it shouldn't be.


I don't agree with that at all, no. If the players in a cyberpunk game decide to take on the US military, there's just no way they're going to win. If, at 1st level, they decide to enter the Dungeon of Horrible Doom, they're not going to win.

Can we agree that if players try to do something stupid that they have enough information to know is stupid, then they can be killed? I've never claimed otherwise. But it has to be the case that based on what you tell them and what they and/or their characters should reasonably know, they can know that that isn't a good idea. If they do it anyway, then, yeah, don't save them from themselves. But you would never, ever, want it to be the case that they go into, say, the dungeon, get slaughtered, and have you say "Well, what did you expect from the Dungeon of Horrible Doom" and have them reply "The what now?". Especially bad would be if you then say that if they had stopped to talk to the beggar in that alley behind the pub, he would have told them that, at which point they'd wonder how in the world they were supposed to know that.


And, in general, it's up to the players to make the scenario winnable. I know mine are quite capable of this.

As a GM, you can create a scenario where it is absolutely impossible for them to win. I'm saying that you have to avoid that. I don't see the problem here.


A world, simulated, will have no-win scenarios aplenty. The players have to pick their battles, both literal and metaphorical, and work for their victories. Sometimes, victory isn't an option, but survival is.

Why isn't survival, then, a victory for that case? I think you're taking "winning" far too narrowly here. Remember, I'm a storygamer, as you said, so surely you can understand that I'd feel that sometimes for the story you have to escape with your lives. But those cases need to be telegraphed, so that people don't toss their lives away on useless causes only because they didn't know that it WAS useless.


My stance is that it's not my job to spoon-feed them information, either. If they don't scout, research, or otherwise get information, that's their problem.

Considering that in any average gameworld, there are tons of information that might be important, you surely would agree that you should drop some hints so that they can focus on what they need to ask, as long as they do some thinking, right?


"Reasonably well" sounds like a pretty low standard of challenge to me. I generally think "reasonably well" should get them survival, sometimes victory.

It should get them on in the game with a reasonable amount of success, however that is defined. Clearly, you shouldn't demand perfection, but you don't have to hand hold them either.


As I said, you prefer storygaming.

Absolutely, but I still don't see how -- and you ignored my point on that -- that style and challenge are mutually exclusive.


Actually, what a good GM won't do is come up with single-solution problems.

Yes, that's what I said, or at least part of what I was trying to say. So? There still has to be multiple solutions that the players can ACTUALLY DO. Taking your example, as long as your players have characters with those skills and the game and information is set-up so that they can indeed know that those are options, more power to your group. Other groups might prefer less challenging scenarios, and there's nothing wrong with that. This is, then, bringing it down to degree, as I've said repeatedly.


Unfortunately, feelings aren't valid just because you (passive you) are feeling them. You might not feel that great about losing a game of poker, either, but you've got to suck it up and go on with it. If winning is what your enjoyment of a game is predicated on, you're going to be very poor company for gaming.

In a co-operative game where everyone is just trying to have fun, feelings affect the fun people are having. And while you see this as just them being upset about losing -- and I do agree that a lot of it is that -- you have to consider that sometimes, some people will feel cheated because their expectations were broken, and that's going to cause problems. To take on your poker example, you could imagine a case where the rule is that if you can't match the bet you have to fold, and one player always pushes all in as soon as they get ahead. That would mean that the other player lose a lot, but if they felt cheated in that case it wouldn't be an unfair feeling.

Note that I don't think that this is the same case as what the OP has.


Playing a game of tactical combat (obviously the party's preference, too), you should probably at least make a token effort at tactics and being good at combat. Like not blithely leaving enemies behind your back, held at bay by what you explicitly know to be a limited-duration spell.

Seriously, if a player cast a fire wall to keep some goblins at bay, and the goblins join the fray again after the spell's duration ends, is that unfair? No? Then why is the part water scenario unfair just because the players thought they'd dealt with the enemy?

I don't want to argue the details of the specific cases, because I never said that they were being fair or that this wasn't expected. That being said, there are a number of ways where they might have expected that it would have allowed them to bypass the enemies because they didn't have the information to know otherwise. I think the OP did more than enough to warn them of that, but it also isn't as simple as you seem to assert.


Really, these specific players' feelings of entitlement in particular are not valid at all. I can't see how anyone could read these threads and (assuming Talakeal isn't a giant mean evil liar) not see that they're entitled, whiny, and cry foul as soon as things aren't easy and everything doesn't work out perfectly.

I think this might well be true of those players. Happy? That has nothing to do with the rest of my comment, and what we're actually talking about. Or, at least, what I'M talking about.


I would imagine a lot of people are just putting the face of their own personal "power tripping" dm onto my posts and interpreting it as such to compensate.

I hope you aren't including me in that, since what you replied to was originally addressed to me, and all I did was not jump to them being complete entitled whiners and instead diplomatically talked about it being a matter of different expectations.

Talakeal
2013-09-04, 04:55 PM
@karoht:

If my players where half as prepared as you none of this would be an issue.

Yeah, as I said earlier DM fiat is cheating in my oppinion and I never resort to it. Well, almost mever, if there is an actual mistake made in the game world (like during the last session i misheard a players question and gave them some false info and decided to make what i told him correct rather than try and backpedal) then i might consider it.

A lot of the problems with ambushes and terrain are simply about home turf. If the players are invading the dungeon they have to deal with enemies in that enemy's element. If the monsters were invading the pc's base the roles would be reversed. This doesnt usually happen, as the players like to be proactive and get out and see the world (ie go on adventure) and if the players do suffer a defeat, or even some collateral damage, while on their home turf there are long term negative consequences.

@daimbert: no, not about you, just the people who assume i must be fudging or something to get these results.

Scow2
2013-09-04, 07:53 PM
What's funny is the quote that you use later disproves his statement that spots are not automatically passive.
No, it doesn't. It says Spot Checks are reactive, not passive, and takes No Action, meaning it doesn't screw up your action-economy to, say, check corners as you crash through a door while charging the Ogre on the far side of the room, or glance through an open door as you pass by it, or try to spot an invisible enemy the first time you suspect one's in the area. It doesn't say the GM should ALWAYS be making your spot checks for you when there's something to spot

Another "No Action" skill are Hide and Move Silently. Do you assume players are Hiding and Moving Silently whenever they're doing anything, at the respective penalties (-10 for full movement, -20 for fighting or running). As an irrelevent detail, though... I remember seeing argued on another thread that Invisibility gives better hide checks than any other form of Total Concealment (Such as Solid Fog) - but by RAW, it's worse: Total Concealment is a "Perfect" hide check, while a DC 20 reveals the presence of an invisible creature. (Also, there's no rule that a character must REMAIN in cover/concealment to continue hiding after making the attempt)

While you might argue something along the lines of "If there's no cost to calling for Perception Checks, why not assume characters are always doing so?" - the big reason is Player Investment, Attention, and control of the character. It keeps players invested in a dungeon-crawl outside of the battles, by giving them something to do and lines to inquire about. It also makes sure they're paying attention, and tells me what DOES have their attention. That said - I'm "forgiving" as well (I put that in quotes, because the term implies the person did something wrong when they realy haven't), depending on the "importance" of a detail: I like to reward exploration. Bothering to look into a room (Including any detail within it) is usually enough to have a chance of seeing anything trying to hide without being directly out of line-of-sight from the door (Corners and ceilings require a bit more care).

With all that said - I usually give players the benefit of the doubt: There's no way for a player to know exactly what moment a stealthy attacker will risk entering Line-of-Sight, or which point they pass an ill-described ambush point, or things like that. Depending on how engaged the players are in the game, I'll roll reactive perception checks for changing circumstances if they're not being outright reckless, and if they're proceeding with caution, they also get a number of rerolls depending on distance.

I'm not big on "Character Voice/Word for Word" roleplaying (The players don't even speak the same language as their characters!), but I am big on "Character Method" role-playing. "Show, don't tell" goes both ways, GM and Player alike - If you're playing a suspicious, streetwise rogue, don't take everything an NPC tells you at face value, and remain alert. If you're a canny barbarian, describe your "Look before leaping" approach. If you're a Stupid Paladin or Fighter, you're not entitled to a Spot Check to freely check corners and see hidden enemies when you blindly charge into a room (Decently canny and professional Paladins and fighters know to check corners).

Another advantage of making Spot checks solicited is that it allows me to use MUCH lower DCs than otherwise necessary, and reduces the "Skill Tax" nature of Stealth and Perception, allowing characters that don't invest in Perception skills to not be rendered completely useless, because they have a decent chance of seeing something if they bother to look (It also goes for Stealth skills as well - Even terrible sneaks will usually avoid being detected by someone not actually looking for/expecting anyone hidden in an area by making an active attempt to hide). Kronk the 8 INT Fighter that put all his points into Profession (Chef) and Perform (Iron Chef) can still find and see things when he decides to actively look around.

Of course, I guess if I were to codify it, my rule is "Unsolicited Passive Perception checks made by a non-alert character take 10 at a -10 penalty, and do not benefit from Skill Ranks"

I remember you asking "Do I make players describe what words they use to cast spells, or how a fighter handles his sword?" Now that I've thought back on it: Yes, yes I do, to an extent ("I attack him/I cast [spell]" works, but is discouraged. So does "Can I make a perception check?", or similar vague statement). Well, not precise words, but mages should still describe the trappings of their spell. However, there aren't "wrong" answers - Even if the player clearly has no clue how to actually use a sword, I don't penalize his attack rolls. Roleplay doesn't end when initiative begins. Show me who your character is even when the **** hits the fan.

And, I stuck with the 3.0 DMG instead of the 3.5 one. It has a section on "Adjudicating actions not covered by the rules", and "HP may be an abstraction, but a dagger in the eye is still a dagger in the eye". RAW can go take a hike when it interferes with what a player reasonably wants to do.


Why are YOU playing as those characters who are trying to kill the heroes, as opposed to simply CREATING characters who are trying to do that, while you are simply trying to toss out challenges and story and whatever for your players? It's not you against the players, or at least it shouldn't be. Because Reasons (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/checkfortraps/7608-The-Gamemaster-Is-Satan).


As a GM, you can create a scenario where it is absolutely impossible for them to win. I'm saying that you have to avoid that. I don't see the problem here.There should be at least a "way out", and alternate adventures available.




Why isn't survival, then, a victory for that case? I think you're taking "winning" far too narrowly here. Remember, I'm a storygamer, as you said, so surely you can understand that I'd feel that sometimes for the story you have to escape with your lives. But those cases need to be telegraphed, so that people don't toss their lives away on useless causes only because they didn't know that it WAS useless."Victory" in D&D means "All Enemies Dead or Defeated, and Mission Accomplished".



Having enemies use hit and run tactics.
Parties which complain about these tactics tend to not have the ability to use them in kind. In spite of absurdly high Stealth checks, Invisibility, teleportation, etc, it somehow seems to never work. Usually due to DM Fiat. How about if you just stand there waiting for enemies to get at you while they run circles around you, not even bothering to get out of Charging range?


Have the enemies use stealth and ambush the party.
I'm on watch, I have all day Trueseeing, along with other methods of detection like Tremor sense. I can see in the dark just fine, and the camp is well lit because light is a cantrip and fire is cheap. I never roll below a 15, my perception skill is maxed out, and wisdom is my primary stat. We have bear traps and tripwires around the camp, and several alarm spells.
Suddenly, a Stealth guy ambushes me. I get dropped in the surprise round. And the DM is 100% at a loss for explanation, or his math is poor. When it stinks this bad, it's pretty cheesy. Probably DM Fiat again. How about if you're all asleep, in the middle of the hall in a hostile fortress, with no divinations or abjurations or guards up at all?:smalltongue:


Have enemies run away when the players buff up or fortify an area and then attack them later when they have lost the protection.
I'm making a few assumptions as to what you are refering to here. Bear with me.
Players could set up Tuckers Kobolds and rarely actually have it work, yet Tuckers Kobolds are out there waiting for them. Always seems weird that the enemies can be smart and prepare but no matter how smart/prepared the party is they can never get it to work for them.Why would Tucker's Kobolds want to go into the PC's Deathtrap? At least Monster Deathtraps have a lure for Player Characters.


It's like the Sleetstorm + Snowsight combo. When I had enemies use it, the players whined until I pointed out that these were spells that most of the party could access. The truly boorish members of the party complained about it anyway, while the smart ones put the tactic to the test the very next combat.I'm on the side of the "boorish" members of the party: It's not what you can do, as much as what you can do about it. And, starting a Spell Combo arms-race with the Player's Casters is a **** move that ends in tears, celerities, contingencies, CoDzillas, and Batman-God Wizards taking over the world, backed by ultra-buffed monsters that were formerly well-intentioned fighters and unassuming rogues, and backed by crafted battallions of Shadesteel Golems and Mindraped armies (Created from self-resetting Mindrape Traps, not by wasting spell slots).

Fiery Diamond
2013-09-04, 09:05 PM
I've been keeping up with this thread and thought I'd pop in again:

I'm in agreement with Daimbert and Scow2. There is no way on Earth I'd want to play with someone (either as a DM or a player) who had Rhynn's attitude. Frankly, I think Rhynn's attitude is somewhat poisonous - not necessarily his stance (which I disagree with) but the way he comes across as assuming he's factually correct about what he's saying and that Daimbert, who disagrees with him, must therefore just fall into one of those other playstyles, specifically storygaming, and therefore all the opinions Daimbert expresses on challenge are just wrong because he doesn't know what a challenge is since he likes story instead. It's really kind of offensive, actually.

tasw
2013-09-05, 12:04 AM
I use a lot of intelligent tactics.

For players who dont have a lot of tactical skill I've found a good bit of advice is to tell them to roll a wisdom plus their BAB (or relevant skill) and then give a hint. such as....

"your character is a hardened warrrior, he can see that his opponent moves in balance, with awareness of his surroundings and has hardened caluses on his hands where an practiced swordsman does. Perhaps greatest of all he has many small cuts on his arms but none you can see on his face or body. This man is an experienced fighter who can hold his own."

Or "your enemies are of above human intelligence and familiar with magic. They are certainly smart enough to swim away and wait until your buff spells all end and then attack you when your weaker. Are you sure you want to use all your slots on buffing?


If your players are truly tactically stupid give them some easy fights against lower CR enemies, ruthlessly use the rules to your advantage on their turn s and explain every step along the way why your numerically inferior enemies are winning.

nothing like giving a play by play on a brutal spanking of a fight the players should have cakewalked to get them thinking tactically.

Lorsa
2013-09-05, 03:59 AM
Yeah, I pretty much explicitly disagree. If I'm playing the opposition, then I'm against the players - I'm not trying to make them win or let them win, I'm trying to play somebody doing their damnedest to beat them.

I would argue that the GM being an antagonist to the players doesn't work in the majority of roleplaying games. Furthermore, from reading your Medusa-lair dungeon it seems as though you really aren't even if you claim to be.

For the GM/DM to be able to be against the players (as in, the players fail means the GM won) there needs to be clear distinct rules and limitations for what the GM can do. Most roleplaying games simply don't have that and instead gives the GM all the power in the world. This means that in a GM-vs-player setup being the GM means you won by default.

If you wanted to win, why would there be mirrors in the Medusa's lair at all? Why would you leave possibilities for the players to win? A GM who doesn't want the players to win could simply make her impossible to beat.

So, I dare say you are indeed not in opposition to the players, them loosing doesn't mean that you won because if that was the case you're pretty stupid to give them means to prevail when you have the power to control the world.

What Daimbert is trying to say is; the NPCs/monsters that you play are against the player's characters (although not all would be?) but that does not mean you as a GM need to be against the players. While beings that you control might do their damndest to defeat the player's characters, you should not.

It seems as, according to your own words, you are merely creating a very consistent and highly interactive and simulated world which the players can interact with through their characters. If you were against the players, or even playing the opposition, that would imply that nowhere in this world would there be anyone that was friendly to the player's characters. If there are friendly NPCs as well, and you are controlling those (it's possible that you aren't) then you are not only controlling characters antagonistic to the players but also those that are helpful. Does that imply you as GM is both against and for the players at the same time? It seems a bit counter-intuitive to me.

So again, in the majority of roleplaying games, viewing it as being players vs. the GM, with the players failing/dying/loosing being a win for the GM then it is impossible for the Game Master to loose and you might as well sit there rolling a die for who's turn it is to be GM and then go "ok, you won, let's roll again".

skyth
2013-09-05, 10:54 AM
:smallsigh: Everything Scow2 had said regarding the things I said above "what he said." One of his posts basically said the exact same things I said in the first part of my post.


"Action: Varies. Every time you have a chance to spot something in a reactive manner you can make a Spot check without using an action

Without using an action...Not even a free action. In other words nothing is required from the player and it is passive.

Lorsa
2013-09-05, 11:02 AM
Without using an action...Not even a free action. In other words nothing is required from the player and it is passive.

No, that is not what the rules say. The rules merely say it doesn't require an action in the game mechanical sense, it says nothing of if the player need to request the roll or not.

It is up to each person to interpret the rules the way they see fit. You may allow for passive perception rolls or rather, rolls being made without player request or that the player must be proactive and make the roll himself.

Segev
2013-09-05, 11:05 AM
No, that is not what the rules say. The rules merely say it doesn't require an action in the game mechanical sense, it says nothing of if the player need to request the roll or not.That's...an interestingly fine reading of the separation between "requiring an action" and "requiring the player to request a roll." I don't think there is, in fact, a game mechanical phrase for the latter. Can you name a place in the rules where it ever says a player must request a roll but that it doesn't take any action at all, not even a free one?


It is up to each person to interpret the rules the way they see fit. You may allow for passive perception rolls or rather, rolls being made without player request or that the player must be proactive and make the roll himself.
Where the rules are silent, yes, interpretation is required.

Scow2
2013-09-05, 11:08 AM
That's...an interestingly fine reading of the separation between "requiring an action" and "requiring the player to request a roll." I don't think there is, in fact, a game mechanical phrase for the latter. Can you name a place in the rules where it ever says a player must request a roll but that it doesn't take any action at all, not even a free one?
No, because that's not a mechanic of the game. It's about the atmosphere and style of the game - just as there are no rules saying how the DM must describe things, or how a player is to record their equipment, buffs, and other details. It's part of the Metagame, which is a game in its own right.

Lorsa
2013-09-05, 11:09 AM
That's...an interestingly fine reading of the separation between "requiring an action" and "requiring the player to request a roll." I don't think there is, in fact, a game mechanical phrase for the latter. Can you name a place in the rules where it ever says a player must request a roll but that it doesn't take any action at all, not even a free one?

No I cannot. While I personally allow players to roll for perception even without their request, if we are going to discuss the rules we should talk about what is actually written. Unless you say "I interpret this as..." which is fine and may in the end lead to much less discussion.

Right now, the argument is based not on the actual rules but by an interpretation of them. No wonder it is difficult to come to an agreement.

skyth
2013-09-05, 11:14 AM
I've been thinking about the whole situation here...And really, you have one person who's way of having fun is keeping the rest of the players from having fun. What would you say if it was a player that constantly steals and griefs the other players, but he doesn't have fun if he can't 'play his character how he would act'. Or the guy than insists on playing the evil character in the group of paladins...Or the guy that insists on playing a paladin in a party of evil characters.

The way Talakeal talks about the situation are similar. I can't have any fun unless I use 'basic tactics' even though using these 'basic tactics' means hurting the fun of the other players. Really, this is incongruent playstyles.

I was also thinking of the question as to whether a GM should shift their playstyle to increase the fun level of the group even if it costs them a bit of their fun. There is an old phrase to think over...'With great power, comes great responsibility'.

Karoht
2013-09-05, 12:26 PM
How about if you just stand there waiting for enemies to get at you while they run circles around you, not even bothering to get out of Charging range?Depends on the situation really. Is the party a phalanx of melee fighters with polearms and tower shields, and they are constantly bracing for charge/holding their actions? Then yes, that is a solid strat. If not, then they are idiots who are basically standing and taking it. Or they are trying to be a bauss and be all like "come at me brah" which can be fun. Or result in death. Whichever.
Quicklings. They're quite difficult to fight as a clustered group, and their high move makes spreading out even more dangerous. Fun times.


How about if you're all asleep, in the middle of the hall in a hostile fortress, with no divinations or abjurations or guards up at all?:smalltongue:If I sleep in the house of a pack of axe murderers and don't even post guard...


Why would Tucker's Kobolds want to go into the PC's Deathtrap? At least Monster Deathtraps have a lure for Player Characters.Exactly. And rarely is it the reverse for the players trying to lure in their foes.
On the other hand, if you can somehow set it up right, it is really really fun to fight an army of mooks when you are holding a solid choke point with proper preparations to slow them down or kill them.


I'm on the side of the "boorish" members of the party: It's not what you can do, as much as what you can do about it. And, starting a Spell Combo arms-race with the Player's Casters is a **** move that ends in tears, celerities, contingencies, CoDzillas, and Batman-God Wizards taking over the world, backed by ultra-buffed monsters that were formerly well-intentioned fighters and unassuming rogues, and backed by crafted battallions of Shadesteel Golems and Mindraped armies (Created from self-resetting Mindrape Traps, not by wasting spell slots).Yet the game already goes that route, just saying. The point I was making was probably obscured by the brevity of my example. I'll expand slightly.

So here we have a party of 4 casters and two mundanes (but with high UMD scores). They're hit by enemies who use Snowsight combo'd with Sleetstorm. They complain. Previously up to that point, the Druid in the party rather enjoyed throwing Sleetstorm around as battlefield control. Complaints abound.
I point out that 4 of the 6 could just take the spell Snowsight (thereby countering, giving them something they can do about it), and two of them could easily use scrolls or something to fill the gap. Suddenly their brains work again, the light bulb turns on, and they start doing so, rather than complaining or calling it unfair.

The point of the example, is that players enjoy these tactics but dislike it when said tactics are used on them. Rather than THINK their way out of the problem, some players would just rather complain than adapt. No one seems to want to acknowledge that their tactics are of limited use, especially in sight of enemies using solid tactics which are actually succeeding. Players claim want thinking feeling intelligent enemies with motivations and personal logic. When actually faced with an enemy who prepares for battle and fights with skill and cunning, they complain that they aren't getting packs of enemies sacks of hitpoints who group up together to eat Fireballs and otherwise stand around waiting for their throats to be slit by the player party.

The players are supposed to be heroes. You know what heroes do when faced with adversity? With enemies who can outmuscle, outfight, outsmart, outmanouver them? They grit their teeth and find a way to win, not stand around complaining.

IMO, if my players want to be heroes, then I want my players to think and act like heroes. That goes double for my fellow party members.

Talakeal
2013-09-05, 02:05 PM
I've been thinking about the whole situation here...And really, you have one person who's way of having fun is keeping the rest of the players from having fun. What would you say if it was a player that constantly steals and griefs the other players, but he doesn't have fun if he can't 'play his character how he would act'. Or the guy than insists on playing the evil character in the group of paladins...Or the guy that insists on playing a paladin in a party of evil characters.

The way Talakeal talks about the situation are similar. I can't have any fun unless I use 'basic tactics' even though using these 'basic tactics' means hurting the fun of the other players. Really, this is incongruent playstyles.

I was also thinking of the question as to whether a GM should shift their playstyle to increase the fun level of the group even if it costs them a bit of their fun. There is an old phrase to think over...'With great power, comes great responsibility'.

How far would you take this? Would you play chess with someone who said "I have to win or I don't have fun, so I need you to lose on purpose?" Would you have fun playing poker if the rest of the table decided you didn't need the money as much as they did and insisted you fold on every winning hand?

Asking to play by the same rules as the players is not asking for special privilege or anything. Not being able to make meaningful decisions during combat means I am not actually participating in the game, I am just sitting around watching the players play and rolling dice for hours on end, which is boring as hell for me.

It also SHOULD be boring for my players, as they should be able to quickly figure out a tactic that can defeat any enemy with no risk, which would turn combat into the tabletop equivalent of playing a video game with the cheat codes on (or at least exploiting a bug in the AI so the bad guy stands there walking into a wall while you shoot it in the back.)


I would argue that the GM being an antagonist to the players doesn't work in the majority of roleplaying games. Furthermore, from reading your Medusa-lair dungeon it seems as though you really aren't even if you claim to be.

For the GM/DM to be able to be against the players (as in, the players fail means the GM won) there needs to be clear distinct rules and limitations for what the GM can do. Most roleplaying games simply don't have that and instead gives the GM all the power in the world. This means that in a GM-vs-player setup being the GM means you won by default.

If you wanted to win, why would there be mirrors in the Medusa's lair at all? Why would you leave possibilities for the players to win? A GM who doesn't want the players to win could simply make her impossible to beat.

So, I dare say you are indeed not in opposition to the players, them loosing doesn't mean that you won because if that was the case you're pretty stupid to give them means to prevail when you have the power to control the world.

What Daimbert is trying to say is; the NPCs/monsters that you play are against the player's characters (although not all would be?) but that does not mean you as a GM need to be against the players. While beings that you control might do their damndest to defeat the player's characters, you should not.

It seems as, according to your own words, you are merely creating a very consistent and highly interactive and simulated world which the players can interact with through their characters. If you were against the players, or even playing the opposition, that would imply that nowhere in this world would there be anyone that was friendly to the player's characters. If there are friendly NPCs as well, and you are controlling those (it's possible that you aren't) then you are not only controlling characters antagonistic to the players but also those that are helpful. Does that imply you as GM is both against and for the players at the same time? It seems a bit counter-intuitive to me.

So again, in the majority of roleplaying games, viewing it as being players vs. the GM, with the players failing/dying/loosing being a win for the GM then it is impossible for the Game Master to loose and you might as well sit there rolling a die for who's turn it is to be GM and then go "ok, you won, let's roll again".

I think you are confusing the DM's roles.

I can't speak for everyone, but when I am designing the adventure I play fair, and do my best to make an adventure that is challenging, but still beatable. It is not fun for the PCs to lose, but it also isn't fun for them to walk over everything with no opposition. Still, at the end of the day, the assumption is that the players will win barring terrible dice rolls or moronic decisions (the latter of which has been happening more and more in my group for some reason).

When I am actually running an encounter I am not designing an encounter. I am simply narrating a story and trying to play the enemy as best as I can. If the enemy is intelligent and wants to win then yes, that means using whatever means are at the enemy's disposal to win. That is, at the ENEMY'S disposal, not at the DM's disposal.

Saying that a DM RPing an enemy as smart or determined to win is the same as a killer DM who intentionally sets up a no win scenario is like saying a player trying to overcome the obstacles in a dungeon is the same thing as rolling up Pun-Pun so you can "win D&D".

Amphetryon
2013-09-05, 02:17 PM
How far would you take this? Would you play chess with someone who said "I have to win or I don't have fun, so I need you to let me in?" Would you have fun playing poker if the rest of the table decided you didn't need the money as much as they did and insisted you fold on every winning hand?

Asking to play by the same rules as the players is not asking for special privilege or anything. Not being able to make meaningful decisions during combat means I am not actually participating in the game, I am just sitting around watching the players play and rolling dice for hours on end, which is boring as hell for me.

It also SHOULD be boring for my players, as they should be able to quickly figure out a tactic that can defeat any enemy with no risk, which would turn combat into the tabletop equivalent of playing a video game with the cheat codes on (or at least exploiting a bug in the AI so the bad guy stands there walking into a wall while you shoot it in the back.)
Chess and poker are competitive games, rather than cooperative, are they not? That means the basic goal of both/all Players is different than it is in D&D, making the analogy imperfect.

Without input from your Players, the notion that "they should be able to quickly figure out a tactic that can defeat any enemy with no risk" still appears, from here, to be at least somewhat contingent on their ability either to match your tactical and strategic acumen (which, by your second paragraph, you don't wish to use at anything less than your best ability), or to guess - quickly! - what you perceive the enemy's weakness is. As I indicated before, those appear to be fairly Gygaxian concepts of gameplay.

Talakeal
2013-09-05, 02:33 PM
Chess and poker are competitive games, rather than cooperative, are they not? That means the basic goal of both/all Players is different than it is in D&D, making the analogy imperfect.

Without input from your Players, the notion that "they should be able to quickly figure out a tactic that can defeat any enemy with no risk" still appears, from here, to be at least somewhat contingent on their ability either to match your tactical and strategic acumen (which, by your second paragraph, you don't wish to use at anything less than your best ability), or to guess - quickly! - what you perceive the enemy's weakness is. As I indicated before, those appear to be fairly Gygaxian concepts of gameplay.

I don't see how competitive vs. cooperative games changes anything. Unless we are in a tournament or something everyone is at the table to have fun. If I am running the orcs who are trying to kill the PCs how is it any different than if I am running the shoe who is trying to drive the other players bankrupt? Shouldn't everyone be having fun in either case?

You seem to be mixing to points. I said [/B]IF[/B] I am not allowed to use any tactics the players can come up with something that will quickly kill the enemies without any noticeable risk or resource expenditure.

Even such a simple tactics as have the mage cast protection from X (x being whatever weapon the enemies are using) and then focus fire on the enemy with the lower AC first will be an auto win against enemies who just stand there and blast whatever comes close to them.

Throwing down a wall of fire and then moving backwards every round is a similar auto win strategy against most enemies.

If we are both allowed to use tactics it should be an interesting and challenging encounter.

Still, it shouldn't be impossible for them, as there are four of them and only one of me, they have almost a decade of practice getting to know these characters while I am running mine for the first time, and they have a tier 1 caster in the party. In addition, I set up the fight to be a fair challenge in the first place, and am NOT using any setting creation or rules writing powers while running the game.

skyth
2013-09-05, 02:45 PM
I don't see how competitive vs. cooperative games changes anything. Unless we are in a tournament or something everyone is at the table to have fun. If I am running the orcs who are trying to kill the PCs how is it any different than if I am running the shoe who is trying to drive the other players bankrupt? Shouldn't everyone be having fun in either case?



Yes, there is a difference, and the issue is that you don't see that.

Segev
2013-09-05, 03:04 PM
The difference is in the power balance of the game.

If you're the shoe trying to drive the cannon, top hat, car, etc. bankrupt, even if you're the banker, you don't have the power to set the prices of all the properties and determine what the rents will be.

When you're running the orc trying to transform the PCs into corpses, you have the power to establish the environment in which this happens and define the orc's stats and resources. You even rule when and how the fight can take place.

The rules do not treat you the same as they do the other players when you're DMing. Therein lies the difference.

Scow2
2013-09-05, 03:05 PM
Without input from your Players, the notion that "they should be able to quickly figure out a tactic that can defeat any enemy with no risk" still appears, from here, to be at least somewhat contingent on their ability either to match your tactical and strategic acumen (which, by your second paragraph, you don't wish to use at anything less than your best ability), or to guess - quickly! - what you perceive the enemy's weakness is. As I indicated before, those appear to be fairly Gygaxian concepts of gameplay.You say "Gygaxian" like it's a bad thing. And misrepresent it - Though I would a agree that playing monsters "To the best of (The DM's) ability" is too far, given the DM has the advantages of complete knowledge of the situation and perfect coordination. You can't expect optimal communication and coordination from a party of players who all have conflicting ideas about what their characters can and should be doing, and what their ally's characters are capable of and responsible for doing.

Bulhakov
2013-09-05, 03:08 PM
Shouldn't everyone be having fun in either case?


From the players' complaints it seems they're not having fun, and while you can't force them to have fun, you're the one with the power to modify the game to make it more enjoyable. The question is whether you can still enjoy it after the modifications? You can't force yourself to change your style so much that you're not having fun, but there might be some middle ground.

Also, if it's been a long running campaign, the players might be simply tired of your tactics-focused DMing style. Have you tried lightening things up? Preparing some adventures with tough but mindless opponents? Or maybe doing a more roleplay-heavy intrigue?

For example, my players occasionally complained that my NPCs are always way too rational (e.g. rarely fighting to the death, frequently surrendering, offering allegiance or ransom) and since they played mainly good/neutral characters they rarely got to blow off some steam. So I occasionally spiced things up with some more psychotic NPCs, monster fights, or a small scale zombie apocalypse.

Daimbert
2013-09-05, 03:20 PM
I think you are confusing the DM's roles.

I can't speak for everyone, but when I am designing the adventure I play fair, and do my best to make an adventure that is challenging, but still beatable. It is not fun for the PCs to lose, but it also isn't fun for them to walk over everything with no opposition. Still, at the end of the day, the assumption is that the players will win barring terrible dice rolls or moronic decisions (the latter of which has been happening more and more in my group for some reason).

I think you're missing where that comment was coming from. It was a response to Rhynn, who was claiming that somehow I was against challenge when I said, well, precisely what you said here. So, if you are agreeing with me, then you are agreeing with Lorsa, who was defending my point of view.

Talakeal
2013-09-05, 03:34 PM
I think you're missing where that comment was coming from. It was a response to Rhynn, who was claiming that somehow I was against challenge when I said, well, precisely what you said here. So, if you are agreeing with me, then you are agreeing with Lorsa, who was defending my point of view.

Maybe missing the point of your comment, but certainly not Segev's:


The difference is in the power balance of the game.

If you're the shoe trying to drive the cannon, top hat, car, etc. bankrupt, even if you're the banker, you don't have the power to set the prices of all the properties and determine what the rents will be.

When you're running the orc trying to transform the PCs into corpses, you have the power to establish the environment in which this happens and define the orc's stats and resources. You even rule when and how the fight can take place.

The rules do not treat you the same as they do the other players when you're DMing. Therein lies the difference.

Let me say this one more time:

When I am actually writing the adventure, defeating the PCs is the furthest thing from my mind. I DO NOT set up scenarios where the NPCs have an advantage (or if they do I adjust their CR accordingly). I write every encounter with the expectation that the PCs will win assuming they do nothing moronic or the dice rolls don't turn against them.

I consider using the DM powers during the game, for example to suddenly change aspects of the rules or the environment to make the fight easier for the monsters or harder for the PCs, to be CHEATING.

I DO NOT CHEAT, and I am really tired of people, both on the forum and at my gaming table, assuming I must be cheating to get the results I get.

People who I have talked to in real life who know my gaming style know that I am a very by the book DM and would never cheat. They actually tell the problem arises because I don't use my DM powers to dumb down the encounter after the players have done something stupid or had a run of bad luck.

I DO NOT have the power to change the environment or "set the prices" WHILE I am controlling the orc. I did that long before the game ever began when I was writing the adventure, when my goal was to ensure a fair fight and wanting the orcs to kill the PCs was the furthest thing from my mind.

Amphetryon
2013-09-05, 03:35 PM
You say "Gygaxian" like it's a bad thing. And misrepresent it - Though I would a agree that playing monsters "To the best of (The DM's) ability" is too far, given the DM has the advantages of complete knowledge of the situation and perfect coordination. You can't expect optimal communication and coordination from a party of players who all have conflicting ideas about what their characters can and should be doing, and what their ally's characters are capable of and responsible for doing.

I placed no value judgment on "Gygaxian," whether good or bad. It may simply be a playstyle that does not mesh well with some Players; there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, unless neither side is able to recognize and adapt to this incompatibility.

Talakeal
2013-09-05, 03:43 PM
From the players' complaints it seems they're not having fun, and while you can't force them to have fun, you're the one with the power to modify the game to make it more enjoyable. The question is whether you can still enjoy it after the modifications? You can't force yourself to change your style so much that you're not having fun, but there might be some middle ground.

Also, if it's been a long running campaign, the players might be simply tired of your tactics-focused DMing style. Have you tried lightening things up? Preparing some adventures with tough but mindless opponents? Or maybe doing a more roleplay-heavy intrigue?

For example, my players occasionally complained that my NPCs are always way too rational (e.g. rarely fighting to the death, frequently surrendering, offering allegiance or ransom) and since they played mainly good/neutral characters they rarely got to blow off some steam. So I occasionally spiced things up with some more psychotic NPCs, monster fights, or a small scale zombie apocalypse.

You may have hit on the core of the problem. Two of the players in my group have very weak egos, and need to believe they are a lot smarter than they are. They only feel good when they feel that they have "put one over" on me or their fellow players.

If I had a game of nothing but tough mindless opponents these two players would just come up with zany schemes to bypass enemies that would never work in real life. Like casting part water and expecting that to simply make the enemies either run away and never come back or into the spell's area and flop around helplessly while the PCs pepper them with arrows.

This kind of gaming is "fun" for these two players because it makes them feel smart. For myself and the other two players (who actually enjoy combat and tactics) this is incredibly boring and breaks our sense of immersion (what exactly are the aquatic creatures with a 15 intelligence and 17 wisdom thinking jumping into a limited duration spell that makes them all but helpless?).

I have had several players over the years sit in with us for a session and tell me such. "The game was really fun, until it got to the mage's turn and he spent 20 minutes coming up with a convoluted plan that would never work and became the central focus of the game. I wish we could have just ran more straight combats," was one such comment.

Segev
2013-09-05, 03:47 PM
Maybe missing the point of your comment, but certainly not Segev's:



Let me say this one more time:

When I am actually writing the adventure, defeating the PCs is the furthest thing from my mind. I DO NOT set up scenarios where the NPCs have an advantage (or if they do I adjust their CR accordingly). I write every encounter with the expectation that the PCs will win assuming they do nothing moronic or the dice rolls don't turn against them.

I consider using the DM powers during the game, for example to suddenly change aspects of the rules or the environment to make the fight easier for the monsters or harder for the PCs, to be CHEATING.

I DO NOT CHEAT, and I am really tired of people, both on the forum and at my gaming table, assuming I must be cheating to get the results I get.

People who I have talked to in real life who know my gaming style know that I am a very by the book DM and would never cheat. They actually tell the problem arises because I don't use my DM powers to dumb down the encounter after the players have done something stupid or had a run of bad luck.

I DO NOT have the power to change the environment or "set the prices" WHILE I am controlling the orc. I did that long before the game ever began when I was writing the adventure, when my goal was to ensure a fair fight and wanting the orcs to kill the PCs was the furthest thing from my mind.
Fair enough.

As long as you're not playing the orc with the mindset that you "win" if you defeat the party - that is, you, the DM-as-a-player-of-the-game - you're probably doing fine. That's not to say the DM shouldn't play the orc as if the orc is trying to win in precisely that fashion. It is a very fine distinction. The latter has a DM who is going to have the NPC use every trick the NPC could possibly think of. The former has the DM himself as the players' foe.

In a board game, there's nobody with meta-knowledge that is considered unfair to use. All players have about the same level of meta-knowledge, in theory, and use of it is just good strategy and tactics. In an RPG, using meta-knowledge beyond what the characters one is playing would have is cheating. And while I'm not saying that's what you do, I am saying that it makes a decided difference in how the two scenarios play out.

A board game has the players against each other and using every bit of knowledge and skill they can. An RPG has the party vs. the enemy NPCs, but neither the party's players nor the DM-as-player are using their full meta-knowledge. Else, the DM-as-player would move his game pieces, regardless of their intelligence, in the most optimal manners he could think to do so, and would use his knowledge and meta-knowledge to the best of his ability to defeat the other players.

Where what I believe we all agree is what should be happening is that the DM is serving as a fair-minded arbiter of what the NPCs and monsters will do, based on his conception of their non-meta-knowledge and intellectual capacities. He doesn't consider it a personal victory to "win" the game by having his orcs defeat the PCs. He still is going to have those orcs give the best fight by in-game standards that their in-character capabilities would let them give.


It's the difference between playing Hero Quest and playing an RPG. The player playing Zargon in Hero Quest (or the more recent equivalents, such as the Castle Ravenloft board game) is absolutely trying to win the game by crushing the other players, and is under no RP-based expectation that his monsters will act with anything but the player's meta-knowledge of the situation.

Segev
2013-09-05, 03:58 PM
You may have hit on the core of the problem. Two of the players in my group have very weak egos, and need to believe they are a lot smarter than they are. They only feel good when they feel that they have "put one over" on me or their fellow players.

If I had a game of nothing but tough mindless opponents these two players would just come up with zany schemes to bypass enemies that would never work in real life. Like casting part water and expecting that to simply make the enemies either run away and never come back or into the spell's area and flop around helplessly while the PCs pepper them with arrows.

This kind of gaming is "fun" for these two players because it makes them feel smart.

What happens if you tell them, "You realize these Aboleths will just wait for your spell to end then come in, right?"

Perhaps, if they like feeling smart, it might be possible to teach them to think things out more cleverly? You and the two other players like tactics; are these two so ineffably stupid that they can never learn? Have you spoken with them OOC about trying to learn tactics?

It sounds like, yes, they WANT to be smart and clever. I can certainly sympathize; one of my greatest frustrations is how inexcusably dumb I can be when playing games. I greatly appreciate help from the DM in making my character come up with cool, useful ideas. Maybe not "30 minutes on my turn in combat," but certainly with some advice before or after, or while in non-combat segments.

If these two players are bound determined not to even let you help them come up with ideas, then maybe it's just time to drop them. I don't know what efforts you've put forth OOC to work with them and help them achieve their goal of being clever and smart IC; it may well be you've done all you can think of and been rebuffed. But if you're not beyond the point where such discussion might help, I do recommend it. Not at the gaming table, or not during session, anyway. Before, or perhaps instead of, a gaming session.

Because maybe they feel frustrated because they feel they've never been given anything BUT failure at being clever. And if they're not clever, but want to feel it, perhaps some help in doing so effectively is all they need. Best case, they might even learn how to be clever in constructive, tactical ways.

But all of this needs to be addressed OOC, first, even if that OOC conversation ends with, "Please leave my game."

Talakeal
2013-09-05, 04:11 PM
@ Segev:

Ok, it seems we are on the same page now.

I actually did tell the players ooc about the aboleths, they ignored me.

As I have said in many previous threads, one of the players is probably the most hostile person I know when it comes to having a rational OOC discussion.

He is very stubborn IRL, and he responds to conflicting views during a conversation with either anger or silent pouting. He prides himself on never forgiving anyone or changing his mind, and if I (or anyone else) does out argue him he simply hangs up on me / gets in his car and drives away / goes into another room and locks the door all without a word.

Also, he doesn't always fail. He has come up with some brilliant plans in the past that have worked well. When this happens I make sure to compliment him on him.

One problem is he usually goes for big flashy effects that end the fight with one spell rather than subtle spells that shift the tide. He considers spells without big flashy effects "not magic" and says that he came to the table to "play a mage." Rather than casting spells which make his party resistant to the enemies attacks he needs to make them immune because "immune is better", not realizing that an enemy who does less damage will keep fighting and ultimately lose, while an enemy who does nothing will have to find some other strategy, which usually involves running away and finding help.

Fiery Diamond
2013-09-05, 04:20 PM
@ Segev:

Ok, it seems we are on the same page now.

I actually did tell the players ooc about the aboleths, they ignored me.

As I have said in many previous threads, one of the players is probably the most hostile person I know when it comes to having a rational OOC discussion.

He is very stubborn IRL, and he responds to conflicting views during a conversation with either anger or silent pouting. He prides himself on never forgiving anyone or changing his mind, and if I (or anyone else) does out argue him he simply hangs up on me / gets in his car and drives away / goes into another room and locks the door all without a word.

Also, he doesn't always fail. He has come up with some brilliant plans in the past that have worked well. When this happens I make sure to compliment him on him.

One problem is he usually goes for big flashy effects that end the fight with one spell rather than subtle spells that shift the tide. He considers spells without big flashy effects "not magic" and says that he came to the table to "play a mage." Rather than casting spells which make his party resistant to the enemies attacks he needs to make them immune because "immune is better", not realizing that an enemy who does less damage will keep fighting and ultimately lose, while an enemy who does nothing will have to find some other strategy, which usually involves running away and finding help.

Eeesh, that guy sounds like a jerk. With regard to the very last thing you said: have you, in so many words, pointed that out to him?

Segev
2013-09-05, 04:21 PM
He must be a good and dear friend if you continue to put up with him.

Talakeal
2013-09-05, 04:32 PM
He must be a good and dear friend if you continue to put up with him.

No, not really. In fact anytime I refer to him as a friend he has to remind me that "He am not his friend. He can only be friends with someone he trusts. He does not trust me anymore."

This is in response to a time ten years or so ago when I promised him we could try out a different game on game night and then when 3 of the 5 players flaked out I cancelled the session "broke my promise".

As I said, he takes pride in never having forgiven anyone.

That said, when he is in a good mood he is fun to have at the table as he actually cares about the game (at least the crunch aspects of it) and shows up reliably, and is very useful as a play tester as he has a nose for rules exploits.

But then again, you probably already knew this if you read any of my previous threads, and it is a moot point as my old game is on hiatus (perhaps permanents if I can find a new group).

Daimbert
2013-09-05, 04:36 PM
Maybe missing the point of your comment, but certainly not Segev's:

Please check the thread. The part I quoted your response to was a response to a comment by Lorsa, not Segev, and you missed the point of Lorsa's comment, in my opinion.

Talakeal
2013-09-05, 04:40 PM
Please check the thread. The part I quoted your response to was a response to a comment by Lorsa, not Segev, and you missed the point of Lorsa's comment, in my opinion.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I was not directly responding to any one person or post , just the general sentiment that a DM is incapable of being an impartial participant in a combat because they have the power to alter things on a whim, which I believe both Lorsa and Segev were expressing.

Rules arbitration, running encounters, and setting / adventure creation are three separate roles, and when I am doing one I am not doing the other two, and the fact that I have done so at a different point in time does not impinge on my ability to perform the task at hand.

Lorsa
2013-09-05, 04:45 PM
I think you are confusing the DM's roles.

I am? How so?


I can't speak for everyone, but when I am designing the adventure I play fair, and do my best to make an adventure that is challenging, but still beatable. It is not fun for the PCs to lose, but it also isn't fun for them to walk over everything with no opposition. Still, at the end of the day, the assumption is that the players will win barring terrible dice rolls or moronic decisions (the latter of which has been happening more and more in my group for some reason).

How does that contradict anything of what I said? Where did I say there should be no opposition? If you design adventures to be fair you really aren't against the players as such.


When I am actually running an encounter I am not designing an encounter. I am simply narrating a story and trying to play the enemy as best as I can. If the enemy is intelligent and wants to win then yes, that means using whatever means are at the enemy's disposal to win. That is, at the ENEMY'S disposal, not at the DM's disposal.

Yes, and this is exactly my point. The enemies are against the player's characters (and in extention the players). I never argued that they shouldn't be intelligent or use whatever means they have to come out ahead. But if YOU as a DM is actively trying to win over the players (that is, making them fail) then you can easily construct enemies that have so many tricks at their disposal that victory for the players is impossible. The fact that you are not doing so tells me you are NOT against the players.


Saying that a DM RPing an enemy as smart or determined to win is the same as a killer DM who intentionally sets up a no win scenario is like saying a player trying to overcome the obstacles in a dungeon is the same thing as rolling up Pun-Pun so you can "win D&D".

Yeah, and I never said that. Of course you should set up the enemies with the mindset that they will want to win. Otherwise you wouldn't roleplay them very well. Taking your actions from the adventure you wrote about earlier at face value I see nothing wrong with them. That's how I would expect monsters I face to act.

What I said was, specifically, that if a DM is actively playing against the players, something I interpret as having them loose means you have won, then you are stupid if you loose. It is like two teams meeting where one side is deciding what game to play, what resources they both have availible and being the referee all at the same time. If you as a DM want the players to loose, why would they ever win?

Not being against the players does not mean there can't be challenges, or that you should always make sure the players win. When I am GMing, I want my players to have fun and enjoy themselves. That means that sometimes their characters fail. If they didn't they wouldn't enjoy the game! I am FOR the players, but sometimes AGAINST their characters. Some players get their fun out of very steep and difficult challenges, others get their fun out of different things. I will always try to adapt to the ones I GM for. After all, if the game is not enjoyable to the majority of the participants, why bother playing?

And this is I believe the conclusion you should consider. You are not enjoying yourself, the players does not seem to enjoy themselves either. Why bother playing?

Daimbert
2013-09-05, 04:47 PM
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I was not directly responding to any one person or post , just the general sentiment that a DM is incapable of being an impartial participant in a combat because they have the power to alter things on a whim, which I believe both Lorsa and Segev were expressing.

Rules arbitration, running encounters, and setting / adventure creation are three separate roles, and when I am doing one I am not doing the other two, and the fact that I have done so at a different point in time does not impinge on my ability to perform the task at hand.

My interpretation of Lorsa's comment was that it was the same sort of thing I was saying: in your role as GM, you are not an antagonist for the players, and you don't win if they lose. That's pretty much what you're saying here.

Scow2
2013-09-05, 04:49 PM
I have had several players over the years sit in with us for a session and tell me such. "The game was really fun, until it got to the mage's turn and he spent 20 minutes coming up with a convoluted plan that would never work and became the central focus of the game. I wish we could have just ran more straight combats," was one such comment.
So Mr. Toxic really has been costing you players and a more enjoyable experience. I hope he's out of your life. Maybe we could hook him up with Trekkin's GM?

The Glyphstone
2013-09-05, 04:55 PM
So Mr. Toxic really has been costing you players and a more enjoyable experience. I hope he's out of your life. Maybe we could hook him up with Trekkin's GM?

I'm pretty sure the Geneva Conventions have a clause regarding the deliberate direction of players towards Chief Circle.

Talakeal
2013-09-05, 04:56 PM
So Mr. Toxic really has been costing you players and a more enjoyable experience. I hope he's out of your life. Maybe we could hook him up with Trekkin's GM?

Well, no, these were people who were only playing for a one shot session in the first place. And it isn't his personality that is driving them away (in this example at least) its just that he likes to over think plans and show off his ic power and ooc cleverness, both of which he often overestimates or over applies it so much that it starts to be a hindrance.

@ Lorsa:

Ok, I am sorry if I misinterpreted what you were saying.

I thought you were saying that the DM is one monolithic role, while I define it as three separate roles: The referee, the guy who sets the stage, and the guy who plays the monsters.

I was saying that these three roles have different goals. The guy who sets the stage wants a fair but challenging encounter, and the guy who plays the monsters wants whatever the monsters want, usually to kill the PCs.

I am not having fun if I am not able to play any of these roles to the best of my ability*.

In my mind the ranking for possible outcomes of a game are:

Best: PCs triumph over challenging odds.
Second Best: PCs lose, but barely, and are able to meet partial objectives and continue on towards eventual victory.
Bad: PCs stomp all over everything with no serious adversity**.
Worst: PCs are stomped all over and never have a chance.
Worstest: As above but the game ends due to a TPK or OOC bickering over the result.

The usual result these days seems to a combination of second best and worstest. The PCs barely lose, and then blow up OOC and way overreact to the situation, with accusations of cheating towards me and incompetence towards their fellow players.

*: Note that as I said my role is playing the monsters, not killing the PCs. If I have to resort to meta-gaming or using tactics that are beyond the monsters intelligence to kill the PCs I am no longer playing the monster to the best of my ability.
**: Although this can be really fun occasionally.

Lorsa
2013-09-05, 05:10 PM
He is very stubborn IRL, and he responds to conflicting views during a conversation with either anger or silent pouting. He prides himself on never forgiving anyone or changing his mind, and if I (or anyone else) does out argue him he simply hangs up on me / gets in his car and drives away / goes into another room and locks the door all without a word.

This seems like a horrible person to spend time with. Why don't you kick him (and the other problem player) and continue playing with the two others who might enjoy your game more? He sounds like exactly the kind of person I would dislike with all my heart.


Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I was not directly responding to any one person or post , just the general sentiment that a DM is incapable of being an impartial participant in a combat because they have the power to alter things on a whim, which I believe both Lorsa and Segev were expressing.

Nope, not what I said. I said that if you're out to win over the players then you're NOT being impartial. Which... you really aren't. Of course you can be an impartial participant in combat (although true impartialness is very difficult to achieve unless you're a Vulcan (are you? that would be so cool)). I was disagreeing with Rhynn who according to what I read said that the DM himself should be an antagonist to the players (and then continued with describing an adventure of his which seems to contradict his stance).

You say that you are impartial and are designing fair challenges. That's good. I never had any problems with that. I don't even have any problems per se with a DM that is actively trying to make the players loose, I just don't see why he'd ever let them win.


My interpretation of Lorsa's comment was that it was the same sort of thing I was saying: in your role as GM, you are not an antagonist for the players, and you don't win if they lose. That's pretty much what you're saying here.

That's a correct interpretation. Although more correct would be: if you are an antagonist for the players, then logic dictates you win if they lose. And due to the nature of the majority of RPGs' rules, that pretty much means it's a default win for the GM. The rules structure of most RPGs simply isn't constructed in such a way as to allow for a full out player vs. GM kind of scenario.

SavageWombat
2013-09-05, 05:19 PM
I haven't finished the thread yet, but yes, your players are whiny little bitches.

There are lots of good suggestions on the thread for handling this - and yes, you are by my rights a hard-ass DM, but not unfair.

Example: if your party wants to buff and fight a dragon who gets wounded and runs away - they need to learn to prevent escapes in the future. That's what would happen in the real world - if you don't want the enemy to escape, don't let them.

"Shut up and let us kill stuff" shows the mindset. They don't want to learn better tactics, they want you to dumb the game down to them. So it's up to you - are you going to change for them, or walk?

PS if this is just a complaining-about-players post, I completely understand.

Talakeal
2013-09-05, 05:42 PM
I haven't finished the thread yet, but yes, your players are whiny little bitches.

There are lots of good suggestions on the thread for handling this - and yes, you are by my rights a hard-ass DM, but not unfair.

Example: if your party wants to buff and fight a dragon who gets wounded and runs away - they need to learn to prevent escapes in the future. That's what would happen in the real world - if you don't want the enemy to escape, don't let them.

"Shut up and let us kill stuff" shows the mindset. They don't want to learn better tactics, they want you to dumb the game down to them. So it's up to you - are you going to change for them, or walk?

PS if this is just a complaining-about-players post, I completely understand.

I am not sure about "hard-ass". I am solidly in the simulationist camp, and don't change the world on a whim, but I still warn players when they are doing something dumb or allow them to perform a "tap back" if they make a mistake or want to refluff / fudge a technicality when it comes to character building.

The problem isn't actually dumbing the game down to their level, that I might be ok with, they want me to dumb it down BELOW their level so they can feel smart when they use tactics but I am not allowed to respond in kind.

Mr Beer
2013-09-05, 05:48 PM
Unless Talakeal is just openly lying, it's well established that this group os composed of people who are awful players and worse people.

There's no point in a 'maybe there are two sides to this' discussion, until he GMs a session with normal people who don't deliberately work to disrupt game sessions, make it a point of pride to harbour decade-long grudges over trivial non-issues and resolve heated discussions by pulling knives on each other.

Lorsa
2013-09-05, 05:53 PM
@ Lorsa:

Ok, I am sorry if I misinterpreted what you were saying.

I thought you were saying that the DM is one monolithic role, while I define it as three separate roles: The referee, the guy who sets the stage, and the guy who plays the monsters.

I was saying that these three roles have different goals. The guy who sets the stage wants a fair but challenging encounter, and the guy who plays the monsters wants whatever the monsters want, usually to kill the PCs.

I am not having fun if I am not able to play any of these roles to the best of my ability*.

Hey, that's ok, people misinterpret things all the time. The DM certainly has many roles, although I prefer to see them more as tasks. You really should try to do something to make sure you have more fun.

Tim Proctor
2013-09-05, 05:54 PM
I've had issues with groups, and had one adventure (that I'm sorta surprised they survived) where I had the innocent victim in adventure #1 return at adventure #15. But he harnessed a grudge and hate for them for many many years, and with complete book legal stuff built an army (living and undead) and made a giant plot to kill them. Stuck completely with things a PC could do (didn't chain leadership or anything stupid) but set up a trap/defensive position and they barely survived. Literally a pre-combat buff saved them all, so it seemed to be at the exact level of effectiveness needed.

But they complained through the roof that it was a death trap and I was trying to kill them. My answer was that 'he' was trying to kill you and I had all confidence that they would win, and as evidence I told them that my job 'in combat' was to bring them back 'broken, beating, depleted, but alive' which I did. I also have (same campaign) killed off 3 PCs who dared to go where they shouldn't, or at least went there in a stupid way, so I think they saw it as a recoming of that. My response was that I don't reward stupidity but intelligence and is PCs want to be intelligent they get extra stuff, and gave them extra experience (they shutup after that).

SavageWombat
2013-09-05, 07:04 PM
I am not sure about "hard-ass". I am solidly in the simulationist camp, and don't change the world on a whim, but I still warn players when they are doing something dumb or allow them to perform a "tap back" if they make a mistake or want to refluff / fudge a technicality when it comes to character building.

The problem isn't actually dumbing the game down to their level, that I might be ok with, they want me to dumb it down BELOW their level so they can feel smart when they use tactics but I am not allowed to respond in kind.

No, it's not a criticism. You're just "hard" in the sense that, frex, if I ran a game where the PCs were actually in danger of losing their characters through bad play, they'd complain. Because they're used to "soft" play. They want to focus on the story, and can't take setbacks with grace well. It helps them that I suck at tactical play.

Your players, by contrast, are actually resisting your attempts to provide them with the information they need, so I'm not sure what to call them besides the aforementioned whiny bitches. I'm not sure even the "you're being mean" people in this discussion would want to DM for them.

Incidentally, since several posts reminded me of this: most D&D players seem to respond most negatively to the play style that screwed them over when they were first learning. Some people remember the rules-lawyer player that got away with pushing the DM around; some people remember the cheating DM who wouldn't let their precious NPCs get killed; some people remember struggling in dungeons because one player insisted on running a bard. And when they argue points like this discussion, they are less tolerant of the style they hated and more tolerant of the style they never encountered.

Amphetryon
2013-09-05, 07:25 PM
I also have (same campaign) killed off 3 PCs who dared to go where they shouldn't, or at least went there in a stupid way, so I think they saw it as a recoming of that. My response was that I don't reward stupidity but intelligence and is PCs want to be intelligent they get extra stuff, and gave them extra experience (they shutup after that).
1) This may seem tangential; if so, I apologize, as that's not my intent.

2) The above is what made me consider the question I'm about to pose, but it is not directed solely at Tim Proctor.

I've played in, and seen other examples of, groups where every PC had an INT or WIS of 10 or less written on the Character sheet. For example, one group had a Half-Orc Paladin (INT 6), a WIS 8 Sorcerer, a DN with INT and WIS both at 10, and a low WIS Spellthief. The group had plenty of options available to them, both plot-wise and Character-wise, but acting "intelligently" (or wisely) would have been decidedly out of Character, while acting "stupidly" appears to be a recipe for getting the group in deep trouble with DMs who approach things as I understand the above and punish stupidity. Are low-INT or low-WIS Characters, either singly or as a group, accounted for in the DMing style advocated above? I can't tell.

johnbragg
2013-09-05, 08:25 PM
Are low-INT or low-WIS Characters, either singly or as a group, accounted for in the DMing style advocated above? I can't tell.

I'm thinking of the Robert Heinlein quote, "Stupidity is a capital offense." The only way I could see a party like that surviving would be in a very lighthearted, goofy campaign where they do stupid things and somehow the world works out around them so that what they did turns out to be the exact right thing to do.

Otherwise I just don't see how not-bright characters are going to survive without smart friends in a dangerous fantasy world. Finding traps with your face is a tough way to go through a campaign.

Amphetryon
2013-09-05, 08:34 PM
I'm thinking of the Robert Heinlein quote, "Stupidity is a capital offense." The only way I could see a party like that surviving would be in a very lighthearted, goofy campaign where they do stupid things and somehow the world works out around them so that what they did turns out to be the exact right thing to do.

Otherwise I just don't see how not-bright characters are going to survive without smart friends in a dangerous fantasy world. Finding traps with your face is a tough way to go through a campaign.
Spellthief (in the example) would be finding traps the standard way, I'd think. . . .

Scow2
2013-09-05, 08:41 PM
Incidentally, since several posts reminded me of this: most D&D players seem to respond most negatively to the play style that screwed them over when they were first learning. Some people remember the rules-lawyer player that got away with pushing the DM around; some people remember the cheating DM who wouldn't let their precious NPCs get killed; some people remember struggling in dungeons because one player insisted on running a bard. And when they argue points like this discussion, they are less tolerant of the style they hated and more tolerant of the style they never encountered.I can definitely see this... and ironically, it tends to turn those people into the counter form of "Problem Players" - Rules Lawyers vs. Fiat Players (Usually DMs), Munchkins vs. Scrubs.

Segev
2013-09-06, 09:02 AM
I'm thinking of the Robert Heinlein quote, "Stupidity is a capital offense." The only way I could see a party like that surviving would be in a very lighthearted, goofy campaign where they do stupid things and somehow the world works out around them so that what they did turns out to be the exact right thing to do.

Otherwise I just don't see how not-bright characters are going to survive without smart friends in a dangerous fantasy world. Finding traps with your face is a tough way to go through a campaign.
Yes and no.

Unless mental stats, from an optimization-of-role-play standpoint, are to be superior to physical stats in nearly every way, there must be a way to literally power through "the plans of geniuses." In the real world, superior physical specimens have advantage over those who are only superior mentally because it takes so much planning and prep work to bring intellect to bear in a way that competes with pure physical prowess.

In D&D, mental stats translate both to an RP reason to "play smart," and to pure magical oomph.

So to reward the low-wis/int party for choosing to play in-character, the DM needs to recognize that they still have incredibly valuable skills. Perhaps they won't use the greatest of tactics, but they can be trained, IC, in some rudimentary ones that work well for their style. Perhaps they won't be the masterminds, but whoever is giving them their missions likely finds them VERY useful if they have just a bit of guidance.

Or perhaps they're foolishly self-directed, but simply are THAT POWERFUL. It may be that they go into what should be curbstomp battles, but do it somewhat foolishly, so the ECL of the party is practically lower.

Remember, too, though, that they're still highly skilled adventurers. That low-wis spellthief isn't an idiot; he just has limited impulse control. He is still a talented finder and disabler of traps, and he's not going to stupidly blunder through them.

The key is not to punish their play style by having "brilliant CR-appropriate" foes constantly coming after them. You wouldn't feel badly about pitting a geniusly-played party against CRs a little "too high" for them that are not played quite so brilliantly; take the same into account with this well-played low-IQ party.

Jay R
2013-09-06, 12:16 PM
I've played in, and seen other examples of, groups where every PC had an INT or WIS of 10 or less written on the Character sheet. For example, one group had a Half-Orc Paladin (INT 6), a WIS 8 Sorcerer, a DN with INT and WIS both at 10, and a low WIS Spellthief. The group had plenty of options available to them, both plot-wise and Character-wise, but acting "intelligently" (or wisely) would have been decidedly out of Character, while acting "stupidly" appears to be a recipe for getting the group in deep trouble with DMs who approach things as I understand the above and punish stupidity. Are low-INT or low-WIS Characters, either singly or as a group, accounted for in the DMing style advocated above? I can't tell.

This is a serious problem, but the DM is not (at least initially) at fault.

Party design is not just several independent acts of character design. This example is as bad as a picnic in which everybody brings potato salad.

A party with no high-Int characters is as badly designed as a party that carries no weapons, and for the same reasons.

In either case, when I saw the party mix, I would tell them that this party can't survive in an adventuring world, and try to help them design a suitable party.

Segev
2013-09-06, 01:07 PM
This is a serious problem, but the DM is not (at least initially) at fault.

Party design is not just several independent acts of character design. This example is as bad as a picnic in which everybody brings potato salad.

A party with no high-Int characters is as badly designed as a party that carries no weapons, and for the same reasons.

In either case, when I saw the party mix, I would tell them that this party can't survive in an adventuring world, and try to help them design a suitable party.

Eh, I disagree. Would you say a party with no physical stats (except Con) above 10 would be unable to survive an adventuring world? Especially if they played classes that catered to the statlines they had?

This gets into the problem with trying to enforce only half the mechanics and hand-wave others as "role-playing," but does so almost from the other direction. This party can work. They just need to be strong enough to handle their own mistakes.

Scow2
2013-09-06, 01:12 PM
1)I've played in, and seen other examples of, groups where every PC had an INT or WIS of 10 or less written on the Character sheet. For example, one group had a Half-Orc Paladin (INT 6), a WIS 8 Sorcerer, a DN with INT and WIS both at 10, and a low WIS Spellthief. The group had plenty of options available to them, both plot-wise and Character-wise, but acting "intelligently" (or wisely) would have been decidedly out of Character, while acting "stupidly" appears to be a recipe for getting the group in deep trouble with DMs who approach things as I understand the above and punish stupidity. Are low-INT or low-WIS Characters, either singly or as a group, accounted for in the DMing style advocated above? I can't tell.

INT+WIS 6 is enough to "Not be a complete friggin' moron." The attribute numbers don't tell you what your characters can or can't think/do.

Thrudd
2013-09-06, 04:12 PM
INT+WIS 6 is enough to "Not be a complete friggin' moron." The attribute numbers don't tell you what your characters can or can't think/do.

As I see it, ability scores represent the benefits (or hurdles) the players have at their disposal to overcoming the game's challenges. They do not represent how you should or shouldn't behave or dictate any decisions you make as a player. This is not "night at the improv". A low INT score means the character has few skill points, and will probably fail at ability checks that other characters would probably succeed at. Low WIS means a low saving throw and the character will not likely notice much that is not obvious (no hints for the player, in other words). It does not mean you are forced to let your character wander into obvious danger or attack in a way that would get the character or the party killed. If you want to play up the low scores in an inconsequential social encounter for a few laughs, fine, but I would not encourage that to carry on when all the characters' lives are at stake exploring the wilderness and dungeons.

NichG
2013-09-06, 05:23 PM
Eh, I disagree. Would you say a party with no physical stats (except Con) above 10 would be unable to survive an adventuring world? Especially if they played classes that catered to the statlines they had?


The fact that you have to specify 'except Con' here is telling. I think everyone here is by now generally aware of the huge differences of effectiveness you can get in D&D 3.5 based on how you build your character. How you build your party is subject to the same kind of optimization considerations. Not all options are equal and not all archetypes are equally good. This is even independent of the players making smart decisions - a party of wizards who are played like they have Int 6 may still end up doing better than the party of fighters who are played like they had Int 20.

While we might like the all-Fighter party to be just as viable as the all-Wizard party, its just a consequence of the rules of the game as they are that it isn't.

So the question then is, what should the DM and players do in response to this reality of the game system? There are a lot of options.

- Go back and have the players instead make a balanced party where you have a mix of things, and the smart characters can give the dumb characters the benefit of their tactical insight.

- Separate mental stats from roleplay - let them have their mechanical effects, but leave it at that; encourage the players to use their personal intelligence to deal with the challenges of the game, and make it clear that the game is not just about challenging the characters but is also about challenging the players.

- Alter the theme of the campaign to suit the party you end up with. If its all dumb characters, do the light-hearted campaign where stupidity doesn't have severe consequences and things just tend to work out. Or run a heavily anime-style campaign where 'guts' and 'confidence' count for more than strategy.

- Alter the difficulty of the campaign to suit the party you end up with, while keeping the theme the same. May lead to dissonance and loss of immersion though, if your guy in the grim&gritty campaign wins fights by doing the equivalent of detonating dynamite at point blank range.

- Change the rules of the game to alter the meaning/effect of stats and their archetypal corresponding classes and try to thereby rebalance the various options.

SowZ
2013-09-06, 08:00 PM
I haven't read the whole thread. But I can tell you that I love playing in games where the stakes are high and combat is a problem to be solved. My strongest characters have had little combat ability but just came up with solid tactics and plans to trick the enemy.

One of my favorite characters is a Star Wars character who through convoluted plots has taken down a dreadnaught, a military base, and a whole tribe of hostile monsters. But the fun isn't in just going around slaughtering things willy nilly. Parts of the plan go wrong and I have to adapt. Then the GM has NPCs who try and come up with cool complicated plans to counter it.

In fact, that same GM I played Star Wars in has killed, oh, how many of my characters? I can't even remember. Because I try crazy plots. Sometimes they fail and I die. Sometimes they succeed, but I make enemies, so those enemies come up with convoluted plots to kill me and sometimes those succeed.

More often than not, our plans succeed and the GMs fails because he only has one mind to come up with clever tricks and we have three to six. Sometimes not though, and that's the fun of it. Combat is a lot more interesting when there are four or five or twelve factors going on outside of the powers and abilities of the characters, including using NPC allies, NPC enemies, the environment, etc. But it has to go both ways.

If only I can use clever ploys, its like playing a game of lazer tag where my opponents don't get guns but have to touch me instead. That would be boring.

Jayabalard
2013-09-09, 08:01 AM
If the other DM gives out free fifty dollar bills, he will have more players than you. If the other DM hands out free chocolate, he will have more players than you. And yes, if the other DM hands out more free magic and wealth, he will have more players than you.

Bribery works. Is this news?Those aren't really analogous situations. If you give out free natty ice, you're going to attract a different (and probably larger) crowd than if you're giving out some wierd microbrew. That doesn't make Natty Ice better... just more appealing to the LCD.

Lots of players will run (not walk) away from a monty haul campaign... so magic item bribery isn't some sort of universal win card for DMs


If a chess grandmaster plays a new player using all his abilities, he's not cheating, but he's not playing a fun game for the other person, either.Personally, I'm a believer that you're teaching a new person to play chess, you should handicap yourself rather than playing below your abilities; if you play below your abilities, you just teach them to be a bad chess player.

Start off with just your king and pawns, while your opponent has all of his/her pieces. When she wins, add in pieces until you can still play hard against him while she still has a good chance of winning.

Currently I'm spotting my son a Queen, Bishop and Rook

To bring that back to the RPG world: the best way to teach your players to play tactically is to pick monsters with a small set of abilities (handicapping a monster so that it only has a small set is fine), and play those abilities to the hilt without taking advantage of metagame information.


Almost undoubtedly. I've never met any DM who's as big a jerk as you represent them as thinking you are, and I've never met any player who's as clueless as you represent your players to be.Sadly... I have met both.


If you're right about who they are and what they want, then you're not the right DM for them. Absolutely

Jay R
2013-09-09, 08:42 AM
Personally, I'm a believer that you're teaching a new person to play chess, you should handicap yourself rather than playing below your abilities; if you play below your abilities, you just teach them to be a bad chess player.

Only if I don't change as they slowly learn. When I teach a class in algebra, I'm not teaching them to be bad mathematicians if I give them an algebra test with no calculus problems.

But when they move on to calculus, they should get calculus problems.


Start off with just your king and pawns, while your opponent has all of his/her pieces. When she wins, add in pieces until you can still play hard against him while she still has a good chance of winning.

Currently I'm spotting my son a Queen, Bishop and Rook

Teaching somebody how to play, and playing somebody who is much less skilled than myself are two very different actions. If I'm teaching somebody how to play I occasionally deliberately leave myself open to knight forks, until he learns to recognize them. Then I start leaving myself open to pins, until he learns that technique. Whatever technique I've just taught them should be usable in the next game, just like the algebra homework should cover what we just went over in class.

Similarly, if I am teaching somebody to play D&D, the traps will be more obvious, the monsters' weaknesses more exploitable, and the monsters won't try to prevent the most obvious use of the PCs' spells.

But if I'm running a game for people who aren't very good at it, I won't be deliberately setting up teachable moments; I'll be running lesser monsters, as you suggest.

Lorsa
2013-09-09, 09:03 AM
Pedagogy: Jay R vs. Jayabalard 1-0

Segev
2013-09-09, 09:06 AM
The fact that you have to specify 'except Con' here is telling. Perhaps, but more because a truly abysmal Con is going to make surviving first level nearly impossible without somebody else to soak up hits. 1-2 hp is just not enough to survive a fight, and a party full of nothing but that will suffer. Get 2-3 levels under your belt, and the options you have become great enough to overcome even this. Of course, a very well-played party of high-mental/low-physical stat PCs could survive even with abysmal Cons, but they'd have to play incredibly smart and very true to type in terms of class choice for their stats. Clerics would need all the Sanctuary; arcanists would need their defenses. Nobody would be looking for a fight.


While we might like the all-Fighter party to be just as viable as the all-Wizard party, its just a consequence of the rules of the game as they are that it isn't.Beside the point, and actually inverted in effectiveness at lowest levels, where the "low con" problem would be the most genuinely problematic.


- Separate mental stats from roleplay - let them have their mechanical effects, but leave it at that; encourage the players to use their personal intelligence to deal with the challenges of the game, and make it clear that the game is not just about challenging the characters but is also about challenging the players.I half-agree, half-disagree with this. Mental stats, just like physical stats, represent something about the character. I don't get to "role play" a character who can lift a boulder just because I could do so IRL; he needs to have the same impressive strength I (in this hypothetical) do. Likewise, I should not be playing a silver-tongued devil with a Cha of 6 just because I, the (hypothetical) player could sell ice to Eskimos, sand to Arabs, and tax cuts for the rich to liberal Democrats. Neither should my Int 4 barbarian be solving the complex logic puzzle the DM presents to us, even if I solve such things for fun in my free time anyway, IRL.

But that does go to a later point of yours with which I do definitely agree:


- Alter the theme of the campaign to suit the party you end up with. If its all dumb characters, do the light-hearted campaign where stupidity doesn't have severe consequences and things just tend to work out. Or run a heavily anime-style campaign where 'guts' and 'confidence' count for more than strategy.

- Alter the difficulty of the campaign to suit the party you end up with, while keeping the theme the same. May lead to dissonance and loss of immersion though, if your guy in the grim&gritty campaign wins fights by doing the equivalent of detonating dynamite at point blank range.These are good advice; if the players designed a party that can't handle what you have planned, change the tone of the game to play the game they want. If you MUST have those elements in order to have fun, yourself, then include NPCs to help them out (maybe even let them use the NPCs as mouthpieces for their ideas that would be OOC for their own PCs), or include ways to help the party solve things. Or, maybe, you and the players need to rethink the game you both want to play.

vendur
2013-09-09, 09:21 AM
I haven't read through anything but the OP's post, so my comments are only related towards it.

I, too have had issues with *some* groups, but not all. It depends on a combination of the players understanding of the game and, to be perfectly blunt, the players own intelligence.

sadly, there are a lot of monty hall GMs around who plant the seeds of high reward for little challenge in some players' minds, and they can be offended when everyone they come across is not some incompetent cartoon villain who can't tie his shoes without falling over and dropping all his phat lewtz.


My general suggestions to you:

Talk to the players. For new players with me as a DM, I always tell them straight up. "Be extremely careful when dealing with intelligent enemies -- they are just as smart as you, and in some cases smarter".

But I also make sure they understand that I will not metagame against them. Meaning, if I know they have a magic user who likes to use a certain spell combination or as a team they use a certain strategy, I play my NPCs as if they hvae no idea it is going to happen. I've noticed a lot of the "hard/smart" DMs go out of their way to create encounter that totally foil some strategy of their party. You should avoid this sort of "metagaming" your NPCs. If you do it, that will quickly breed resentment. that's not "hard" or Smart" DMing, it's straight up BS. Now, if you have a sort of an arch villain who has had encounters with your party and knows these things-- then by all means metagame away. But as a player, most hard DMs I came across were just Metagaming against me as a player or my team.

If the games start to get stale because you allow a certain behavior that some might call "overpowered" or whatnot, consider talking about house rules for players, as well as simple have the foresight to know what issues come up so you can "houserule" it before your players get attached to a certain character build or a common part strategy.

I like to build them up with a graduated approach. First encounters being mostly very low int animal-like behavior. then stupid but not suicidal goblins and such, running away for safety in numbers and such. then move up to human-like intelligence. Each step the NPc are getting smarter, but again no metagaming. Slowly the players develop into being more effective against smarter enemies. Maybe casting grease on the floor isn;t going to work this time and the NPC are smart enough to realize that they have more ranged attackers and now they can use the grease for their own advantage against the players.

If you do play them intelligently/hard, also make sure you try to make it somewhat fair. Give them a little help in escaping a situation if they bite off more than they can chew the first couple of times it happens.

Scow2
2013-09-09, 09:40 AM
I half-agree, half-disagree with this. Mental stats, just like physical stats, represent something about the character. I don't get to "role play" a character who can lift a boulder just because I could do so IRL; he needs to have the same impressive strength I (in this hypothetical) do. Likewise, I should not be playing a silver-tongued devil with a Cha of 6 just because I, the (hypothetical) player could sell ice to Eskimos, sand to Arabs, and tax cuts for the rich to liberal Democrats. Neither should my Int 4 barbarian be solving the complex logic puzzle the DM presents to us, even if I solve such things for fun in my free time anyway, IRL.
Logic puzzles are usually to challenge the player instead of character anyway... for the rest: There's nothing stopping the STR 6 guy from TRYING to lift the boulder - but when he makes the strength check (Or carry capacity comparison), he fails to do so. Likewise, you can try to play a Silver-tongued devil with a CHA 6, but when the roll for whether your guy succeeds comes along, it's bungled by the lack of CHA.

Same with the Low-WIS guy that TRIES to be attentitve - those penalities to Spot and Listen are gonna bite him in the ass.

Segev
2013-09-09, 09:44 AM
There's nothing stopping the STR 6 guy from TRYING to lift the boulder - but when he makes the strength check (Or carry capacity comparison), he fails to do so. Likewise, you can try to play a Silver-tongued devil with a CHA 6, but when the roll for whether your guy succeeds comes along, it's bungled by the lack of CHA.

Same with the Low-WIS guy that TRIES to be attentitve - those penalities to Spot and Listen are gonna bite him in the ass.

Sure, but where's the Int-check to see if your Int 6 barbarian can figure out the solution to that sudoku puzzle to unlock the ancient tomb?

I sound hard-line, here, when really, this runs into a problem to which I, myself, have yet to find a satisfactory solution: How do you include social/mental things for players to RP without abrogating their stats? If the puzzle is solved by rolling Int, why bother defining it? If solving it without rolling can be done because you, the player, know the solution, then your stupid barbarian is going to act like a smart guy.

Making enough "game" there for players without removing the "game mechanics" for the characters is...tricky.

Jayabalard
2013-09-09, 09:49 AM
Only if I don't change as they slowly learn.
I disagree: No matter how well you change, playing bad chess to teach them chess is harmful in the long run.


When I teach a class in algebra, I'm not teaching them to be bad mathematicians if I give them an algebra test with no calculus problems.Giving them an algebra test with no calculus problems is handicapping the problem set. It's the equivalent of playing with all pawns, not playing bad chess.

In math there are a lot more levels than there are in chess, so you can't just equate diff eq to the queen, calculus to the rooks, high order geometric problems to bishops and call it a day.


Teaching somebody how to play, and playing somebody who is much less skilled than myself are two very different actions.Certainly.


If I'm teaching somebody how to play I occasionally deliberately leave myself open to knight forks, until he learns to recognize them. Then I start leaving myself open to pins, until he learns that technique. I pretty strongly believe that you're much better off setting up specific chess problems for your student to learn rather than making deliberate mistakes in a game. There's a huge difference between you letting them win by playing bad chess and them actually defeating you by outplaying you (even if you're heavily handicapped). People pick up on that pretty quickly, even young kids.

My kids know that I'm never going to just let them win at chess... they know that if they beat me, they really did beat me.


But if I'm running a game for people who aren't very good at it, I won't be deliberately setting up teachable moments; I'll be running lesser monsters, as you suggest.You can have teachable moments without making deliberate mistakes ... it works in both Chess and D&D.

NichG
2013-09-09, 05:33 PM
I half-agree, half-disagree with this. Mental stats, just like physical stats, represent something about the character. I don't get to "role play" a character who can lift a boulder just because I could do so IRL; he needs to have the same impressive strength I (in this hypothetical) do. Likewise, I should not be playing a silver-tongued devil with a Cha of 6 just because I, the (hypothetical) player could sell ice to Eskimos, sand to Arabs, and tax cuts for the rich to liberal Democrats. Neither should my Int 4 barbarian be solving the complex logic puzzle the DM presents to us, even if I solve such things for fun in my free time anyway, IRL.


I don't personally believe that everything about a character needs to be represented in the mechanics. My own preference is to use systems where there are no explicit stats for certain mental things, so there's no feeling like you're somehow 'playing your numbers wrong'. I very strongly hold that 'this is a game, there must be something there that is driven by the players, not the characters' - its just a matter of choosing what that something is.

Since the game is pretty much a sit-down-and-talk-to-eachother kind of experience, the natural place for me to place this is in the mental aspects rather than the physical aspects, because the players can't really bring physical competencies into it without really changing how the game is played, but they actually have to work pretty hard to exclude their own mental competencies from it. So I feel you might as well just say 'okay, use your own mind and the character's body and persona'.

Anyhow, its one of a number of ways to resolve the issue. Nothing against people who play it in other ways, but I'd probably not enjoy their games so much. For me, personally, the point of the game is figuring things out and doing clever stuff.

I'd feel like I always had to play a Wizard or Cleric to justify engaging in the elements of the game I enjoy, because otherwise I'd end up having to put everything in Int or Wis just to be able to mentally engage in the plot and scenarios to the fullest.

RandomNPC
2013-09-10, 04:41 PM
Friend of mine plays dragons as fights that fly to the party. A huge blue sets down in the middle of the party and starts full attacking 'till it dies.

If I were to toss a blue at the group it'd be disguised as a green or black, cast a few (de)buffs as needed, then start flyby attacks. No breath weapon until it knows its disguise is blown, just spells and a few grab and drops. Also a few stashes of emergency items hidden about for healing and offense. A false lair full of traps and no loot to retreat to when it thinks it's being followed home.

My big bads of the story are all full characters I hand craft, each bit of gear, spells, everything. My first full campaign is still referenced years after the fact, if I was more diligent it'd be a novel by now.

Who's right in the end? Whomsoever happens to be having fun.

Brookshw
2013-09-10, 07:20 PM
Pedagogy: Jay R vs. Jayabalard 1-0

Yes, but on avatar cool level jayabalard-1, jay r-0.

But truthfully when I consider the efficacy both approaches do deliver desired results, its a question of learning objective. I'd say its a tie.

TheCountAlucard
2013-09-10, 09:48 PM
Lemme just say this - playing Exalted, two of the most enjoyable fights I had were with a tactically-minded mortal martial artist, and with a Terrestrial drunken martial arts master, both of whom were utterly-outclassed by me in terms of power, but made me have to think properly and allocate my resources to win. Contrariwise, the least fun fight was blowing up a miles-tall giant by hopping into a magic jet and using a literal infinity-damage laser.

CombatOwl
2013-09-12, 04:38 PM
As anyone who follows my threads knows, I have a long history of players who throw temper tantrums when anything goes wrong. However, I noticed that a common thread in 90% of my problem cases is that people are mad because I play the enemies intelligently. For example:

One of the groups I ran for started to flat out refuse any quest involving Kobolds because of this. Kind of funny, actually.


Having enemies use hit and run tactics.
Have the enemies use stealth and ambush the party.

If they're whining about that, they need to just give up on d&d.


Have enemies run away when the players buff up or fortify an area and then attack them later when they have lost the protection.

I love doing that. "Okay, let's get ready to go through this door. Hold on, let me put up some buff spells. Alright, let's pick this lock and go!" Roll, roll... "Okay, I'm going to take 20 this lock." Me: "Are you sure about that?" "Yeah, gonna take 20 it." "Okay."

They were kind of surprised when they ran inside and I pointed out that all of their minute per level or less buffs were expired.


Have enemies use terrain to their advantages.

I had a group that got mad because I had an evil ranger villain... use his favored terrain to his advantage... when they decided to go challenge him in his own home. Needless to say I had very little sympathy.


Have enemy monsters use spellcasting as buffs.
When the players bypass a monster on the way into the dungeon and have it either follow them deeper in or wait for them to come back out.

Heh, I love that. Especially when they do something retardedly stupid to bypass the whole dungeon, only to have the big bad of the dungeon use his servants to fetch his monsters for the final fight.


These people have told me that they would never play in a group where the DM was using such "unfair tactics".

Want to know another thing that they'll hate you for? Interrupting the 15 minute adventuring day. Especially if the party has a lot of spellcasters who like to throw spells every round whether they need to or not. Let them make enemies, let those enemies use scrying spells... let those same enemies occasionally teleport in when the party's casters are out of spells. That really makes fighters and rogues more useful--and explains why wizards and clerics keep them around.


In the other DMs game he had the players fight a 12 headed pyro hydra with about half a dozen templates on it (not an exaggeration.) It had sky high stats and had a CR at least double the parties level. It stood in the middle of a giant open room, splitting its attacks evenly between everyone who was in range. It never moved or did anything besides standard attacks. The party beat it fairly easily and felt like huge bad asses for defeating something double their level.

If it's any consolation, as a player I find games like that to be pretty boring.


So, in summary, should DMs turn off their brains when playing monsters?

DMs should play at the intelligence of the creature. Mindless creatures, low int animals and beasts, etc... shouldn't have much in the way of tactics. OTOH, the party should be scared ****less of the occasional genuis-level dragon or other NPC--precisely because they can plan ahead and have backup options.


Is it cheating for a DM to only play as intelligently as the situation demands rather than playing all enemies with an equal level of competence?

Not everything ought to be equally intelligent. Some sorts of enemies should be very intelligent--others should be dumber than rocks. The intelligence scores are printed for a reason. Some encounters should be tactically challenging with intelligent enemies who execute competent plans. Others should be straightforward brawls. It really should depend on the intelligence of the creature in question, whether the players were wise enough to tilt the playing field in their favor, and who got surprise on the other.

Karoht
2013-09-13, 02:12 PM
Not everything ought to be equally intelligent. Some sorts of enemies should be very intelligent--others should be dumber than rocks. The intelligence scores are printed for a reason. Some encounters should be tactically challenging with intelligent enemies who execute competent plans. Others should be straightforward brawls. It really should depend on the intelligence of the creature in question, whether the players were wise enough to tilt the playing field in their favor, and who got surprise on the other.
Some days you are fighting sewer rats.
Some days you are fighting Tuckers Kobolds.
When the rats act like Tuckers Kobolds, something is amiss.
When Tuckers Kobolds act like the rats, something is amiss.

Rats are not going to coordinate, hold actions, probably are unlikely to flank except via fluke/coincidence. That is of course assuming that something the size of a rat wants to even engage the humanoid members of the party, who are 100 times their size and mass. A rat might be an animal, but they aren't completely stupid. Even then it's going to be a nip around the ankles, and then retreat.

Argon
2013-09-13, 07:49 PM
Just read the whole thread today. Among all the ideas I agree with NichG the most. I also run a few campaigns, so I understand OP's "lawful and neutral" mindset, but I think there are some serious problems with that.

There are arguments between "letting the PCs win, so they feel happy" vs "maintaining a consistent world and story line, so the PCs die if they don't do something correctly on the way". To me, both of these ideas are not useful. If I want to simply kill dragons or to have a consistent world, I'll play video games instead.

The most important thing of a role-playing game is that you and your friends sit down and have a wonderful time talking with each other. If the players understand the challenges from the DM and are allowed some opportunities trying to get through it, both sides will be happy, even when the players get killed or when the DM had to alter his world or his story.

In the OP's campaign, it's clear that the players didn't understand the tactical challenges the DM designed for them. The most frustrating thing is that, these challenges happened out of the characters' awareness. I think everyone enjoys tactical stuff, even losing to some good one, as long as they aware what is happening.

Some movies can hide the real tactical plan, but it requires some good story telling. The fooled character get through some unconnected strange things before everything is revealed in the end and he can tie them together. However your "hit-and-run" tactic does not feel like that. It traps the PCs in a frustrating guerrilla war that few people enjoy. More on it later.

So yeah, your players won't be happy when a bunch of monsters suddenly attack at the same time because those monsters has great hiding skill or know the terrain. It's true that your players are a little incompetent, but most people are incompetent. If a party is competent, doing perception check all the time, that's great. However, it's not what you should expect in a night out with your friends.

Think of it like this: In a real war, frustrating stuff happen all the time. Your squad cannot check for trap / ambush every inch you go. Soldiers come back from war with serious mental wound because the enemies used hit-and-run. Competent soldiers are rare, too. So, give your players a reason to prefer your story over Afghanistan.

That being said, we still need a some "intelligent" stuff in our story rather than mindless hack & slash. So, some flexibility is needed. Don't have too many things happen "out of the scene". Let the players know that the retreated enemies are following them before they commit to the next room. The moment the ghost stopped following, tell the wizard. The wizard character should notice the moment the he lose his ghost pet. If you forgot to tell him, let him know the reason the moment he ask for it, rather than force him to go back. When the dragon is hiding, emphasize with the players that it's too dark here and they feel something is not right, or alter the outcome so your characters don't suffer much even when they fail to see something.

The "intelligent" part should happen right before the PCs' eyes. Throw some clearer hints. Invisible spirits control some warriors' mind? It's hard for Your players to make a correct guess from some random strange noise you talk about. They also don't need to make that guess to feel intelligent. Find an easy way that the PCs get the knowledge: from friendly NPCs, from a book, from an INT test, or just tell them out right. When the players know about the invisible spirits and start attacking them and gain the allies, they feel the "intelligent" part. Your players will still win, they feel they are smart, and your story still goes as you planned. Both sides are happy. It's hard to make perfectly, but the DM should take responsibility for it and prepare for the next game with a casual group, rather than blaming the players.

If PCs die, they should die because they actively made a bad decision, rather than because they failed to see something. In reality, of course people die all the time when they fail to see something, but reality is brutal. Your game doesn't need that brutality, unless the players ask for it.

So, throw your challenge, but make sure the players notice it.

huttj509
2013-09-14, 03:08 AM
If PCs die, they should die because they actively made a bad decision, rather than because they failed to see something. In reality, of course people die all the time when they fail to see something, but reality is brutal. Your game doesn't need that brutality, unless the players ask for it.

So, throw your challenge, but make sure the players notice it.

Good point, at least for most encounters.

Though if you look at the examples, well, that's kinda what happened for some. Bypass aquatic enemies, told they're following (they didn't sneak past, just walked by with parting the water), ignore it, then cry foul when the bypassed aboleths join in later.

Amphetryon
2013-09-14, 09:35 AM
Good point, at least for most encounters.

Though if you look at the examples, well, that's kinda what happened for some. Bypass aquatic enemies, told they're following (they didn't sneak past, just walked by with parting the water), ignore it, then cry foul when the bypassed aboleths join in later.

At the heart of the matter appears to be the contention over whether bypassing the aquatic enemies was actively making a bad decision.

TheCountAlucard
2013-09-14, 11:56 AM
Bypassing fights is, in and of itself, not inherently bad. It's all about methods used. My Shadowrun group just evaded one carful of Yakuza by hacking the Yaks' car and killing it remotely. That's clever thinking. If the decker had instead chosen to, say, open the back door of the van, mooned the Yaks, and told the PC driving the thing to floor it… well, that's just not a very good way to bypass a fight. :smalltongue:

Likewise, Amphetryon, there should be no contention that the PCs in Talakeal's narrative did not use a good method to bypass the fight. C'mon, man. You raised Herakles. :smalltongue:

Amphetryon
2013-09-14, 12:02 PM
Bypassing fights is, in and of itself, not inherently bad. It's all about methods used. My Shadowrun group just evaded one carful of Yakuza by hacking the Yaks' car and killing it remotely. That's clever thinking. If the decker had instead chosen to, say, open the back door of the van, mooned the Yaks, and told the PC driving the thing to floor it… well, that's just not a very good way to bypass a fight. :smalltongue:

Likewise, Amphetryon, there should be no contention that the PCs in Talakeal's narrative did not use a good method to bypass the fight. C'mon, man. You raised Herakles. :smalltongue:
And he suffered mightily because he always rushed to solve things with brute force, rather than thinking his way around the problem; woe is me.

(Kudos for recognizing the name, though, particularly since it's often spelled differently in translation).