Monsters Are Not Intelligent!

[sambouchah]

Recently in a campaign we started, for when our usual DM has work, my players complained that the monsters/bad guys are too tough.
To which I responded "I am playing them intelligently, just because a goblin is stereotypically stupid doesn't mean they actually are. 10 Intelligence is more than enough to make good use of the tactics they are presenting. I mean that is average for humans, who use military tactics and have a good understanding of them, why can't goblins?"

This made them a little angry. They are level one, but they should know better than to charge in when outnumbered, with no plan in advance. One player complained I didn't give them enough prep time. But they didn't request any. By request I mean making Track checks, or using Spot/Listen to find the camp before stumbling inside.

Basically I am wondering if I am in the clear as a DM for playing monsters "realistically"/intelligently? I can understand that they are used to monsters charging and fighting til they can't anymore, but that isn't how fights work 9/10 times.

Thanks
Sam

[shylocke]

Tell them to be more careful. Only reason goblinoids are tribal is because they aren't as civilized, not stupid. A goblin tribe led by a competent chief is deadly. Hell, just look at hob goblins.

[Socksy]

You're in the right here. However, perhaps they'll reconsider when faced with the biggest CR2 monster you can find, and have it refuse to run or do anything other than EAT THE HEALER THEN THE WIZARD:smallamused:

I mean. Perhaps you should let them think up tactics and then be like. "If you can, why can't they?"

[ksbsnowowl]

When they approached the camp, assuming the goblins were not purposefully being silent, you should have called first for listen checks, then for some spot checks as they got a little closer (in a forest, or in underground tunnels, sound will often carry further than line of sight will allow).

At the very least, you should have used the appropriate encounter distance rules. You didn't specify what kind of terrain this happened in, but in a sparse forest, Spot checks should be called for while the PC's are (3d6 * 10) feet distant from the goblins. The goblins would also make spot checks at that time. Assuming no one succeeded, all would automatically spot the others at one half that distance.

Dungeons are limited more to Line of Sight, and the lighting has an effect too.

[shylocke]

You're in the right here. However, perhaps they'll reconsider when faced with the biggest CR2 monster you can find, and have it refuse to run or do anything other than EAT THE HEALER THEN THE WIZARD:smallamused:

I mean. Perhaps you should let them think up tactics and then be like. "If you can, why can't they?"

Yeah. Put an anhkeg in their way and see what happens.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by sambouchah
Basically I am wondering if I am in the clear as a DM for playing monsters "realistically"/intelligently?

You are 110% in the clear on this. It's a tough world out there, and tactical cunning is as valid a survival trait as any other.

Your players sound like they're sulking a little because things didn't quite go their way. Best thing to do is explain to them that they need to make in-character actions to improve their chances in the future.

.

[sambouchah]

Tell them to be more careful. Only reason goblinoids are tribal is because they aren't as civilized, not stupid. A goblin tribe led by a competent chief is deadly. Hell, just look at hob goblins.

These goblins are actually led by a Hobgoblin! He made them a force to be reckoned with. They're straight out of the MM, only difference is that they have a Sniper(one goblin with a cross bow in a tree), skirmishers(Javelin throwing hit and run goblins) and a Wolf tamer(a goblin with ranks in handle animal).


You're in the right here. However, perhaps they'll reconsider when faced with the biggest CR2 monster you can find, and have it refuse to run or do anything other than EAT THE HEALER THEN THE WIZARD:smallamused:

I mean. Perhaps you should let them think up tactics and then be like. "If you can, why can't they?"

I thought about that ha ha. An Ogre would do the trick probably, they don't use any battlefield control or flank or anything! It's very frustrating to watch them struggle against a couple measly goblins and maybe a wolf. An Ogre would demolish them in a matter of maybe three rounds.

[Sam K]

Monster intelligence is one of the ways the DM can balance an encounter. If your players have high op builds and are playing martial adepts, controll wizards, DMM clerics and such (ok, not alot of that at 1st level, maybe) then having the monsters play smart will give them a challenge anyway. If your players are inexperienced, and playing things like weapon focus warriors and blaster wizards, you may need to tone down monster tactics a bit to make things easier on them.

Monsters of human intelligence should be CAPABLE of using human level tactics. But at the same time, not every human group of hunters, scouts or ne'er do wells are organized or using tactics. If the party isn't enjoying more tactical fights, it's not much good forcing them. But if you want to run a challenging campaign, and the players are up for it, let your players take a few beatings until they learn that monsters dont just lay down and die whenever adventurers walk by.

[sambouchah]

When they approached the camp, assuming the goblins were not purposefully being silent, you should have called first for listen checks, then for some spot checks as they got a little closer (in a forest, or in underground tunnels, sound will often carry further than line of sight will allow).

At the very least, you should have used the appropriate encounter distance rules. You didn't specify what kind of terrain this happened in, but in a sparse forest, Spot checks should be called for while the PC's are (3d6 * 10) feet distant from the goblins. The goblins would also make spot checks at that time. Assuming no one succeeded, all would automatically spot the others at one half that distance.

Dungeons are limited more to Line of Sight, and the lighting has an effect too.

Broad daylight, Dense forest, all failed each spot/listen check I gave them(both rather). Plus the goblins already knew of the intruders because of their scouts, so they stayed pretty quietly.

[Brookshw]

Perfectly reasonable to play monsters at the intelligence level they're given. As the DM though you have a far more intuitive grasp on the world around them, calling for checks at least when something should be relatively obvious is a decent idea even without player prompting. Doesn't feel quite kosher that they should be in the camp rather than on the outskirts first noticing it. On the other hand sentries, traps around camp, etc are perfectly reasonable.

Edit: well, you posted while I was typing, if you called for checks for the scouts and camp then its fair game.

[Morty]

Your players are complaining for no reason. The typical Monster Manual XP fodder humanoids aren't any less intelligent than humans. It makes perfect sense for them not to charge in blindly and be cut down. Unless your players have a good reason for them to do the murderhobos they're facing such a favour.

[sambouchah]

Monster intelligence is one of the ways the DM can balance an encounter. If your players have high op builds and are playing martial adepts, controll wizards, DMM clerics and such (ok, not alot of that at 1st level, maybe) then having the monsters play smart will give them a challenge anyway. If your players are inexperienced, and playing things like weapon focus warriors and blaster wizards, you may need to tone down monster tactics a bit to make things easier on them.

Monsters of human intelligence should be CAPABLE of using human level tactics. But at the same time, not every human group of hunters, scouts or ne'er do wells are organized or using tactics. If the party isn't enjoying more tactical fights, it's not much good forcing them. But if you want to run a challenging campaign, and the players are up for it, let your players take a few beatings until they learn that monsters dont just lay down and die whenever adventurers walk by.

These guys have been playing for about a year, one of them three years and another about eight years(if not more). They definitely have the know-how to take on anything a DM throws their way, they're just used to monsters being dumb and fight to finish style.

[Urpriest]

Remember, the players outnumber you. Goblins should be played to human average intelligence, yes, but take your clue as to "human average intelligence" from the players. If they're bad at tactics, then why should the goblins be any better? The goblins may be at human average intelligence, but the PCs probably have higher intelligence, so the goblins' plans should still be worse than the PCs'.

[3WhiteFox3]

While a lot of the given advice is accurate, one thing I think is important to remember that you don't have to teach your players anything that they don't want to learn. It's a game, and too many times I've had GMs who are so concerned about having their monsters play as good as possible that they forget that the point isn't to crush the players or teach them to play better but to have a fun game.

Don't play the monsters intelligently necessarily, play them realistically, the average group monster should be relying on a competent leader to direct them. When that leader dies, the average monsters will probably suffer visibly from a lack of good leader. Also, remember that in the case of PCs with high mental statistics, their abilities will probably be better than the players, so if you're going to play the monsters to their intelligence, let the intelligence/wisdom of the PCs shine through with intelligence/wisdom checks to realize things that the PCs would have noticed even if the players didn't.

Also I think that many people over-estimate the average intelligence of a human, especially a middle-ages human. Remember, most commoners weren't trained in any sorts of tactics and even warriors need high discipline and good leadership to fight properly, otherwise you get routs and your army crumbling from disorganization. Even in modern warfare, lack of communication and leadership is more dooming than any other factor.

Goblins should probably have one competent war leader who directs from the back, giving the players a target to focus on and ways to implement tactics of their own. The important thing to remember is to give players opportunity to counter the tactics of the monsters. Don't play so well that the players feel that they are being mercilessly crushed, because that's usually not any fun.

The most important thing to do is find a way that everyone can have fun with, not just one side or the other. Monsters shouldn't be there only to make the players feel good and players shouldn't be there only to be crushed by an overwhelming force.

EDIT:
Remember, the players outnumber you. Goblins should be played to human average intelligence, yes, but take your clue as to "human average intelligence" from the players. If they're bad at tactics, then why should the goblins be any better? The goblins may be at human average intelligence, but the PCs probably have higher intelligence, so the goblins' plans should still be worse than the PCs'. Exactly, base 'average human intelligence' on your players, especially if they are bad at tactics, especially since most characters should have a good understanding of tactics.

[Coidzor]

Recently in a campaign we started, for when our usual DM has work, my players complained that the monsters/bad guys are too tough.
To which I responded "I am playing them intelligently, just because a goblin is stereotypically stupid doesn't mean they actually are. 10 Intelligence is more than enough to make good use of the tactics they are presenting. I mean that is average for humans, who use military tactics and have a good understanding of them, why can't goblins?"

This made them a little angry. They are level one, but they should know better than to charge in when outnumbered, with no plan in advance. One player complained I didn't give them enough prep time. But they didn't request any. By request I mean making Track checks, or using Spot/Listen to find the camp before stumbling inside.

Basically I am wondering if I am in the clear as a DM for playing monsters "realistically"/intelligently? I can understand that they are used to monsters charging and fighting til they can't anymore, but that isn't how fights work 9/10 times.

Thanks
Sam

You sound like you're playing tactically while they're playing by the seat of their pants. So really it sounds like you need to have a talk with your players about what kind of game they want and decide if you're the person to give it to them. Might be they're expecting a simpler, beer-and-pretzels kind of game.

[Slipperychicken]

Do they still win every fight regardless of their poor tactics? They might start trying to play smarter after a few losses.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Urpriest
The goblins may be at human average intelligence, but the PCs probably have higher intelligence, so the goblins' plans should still be worse than the PCs'.

I really can't fathom the logic for this. Where is it written that nonhumanoids always have to be less intelligent than humans? Why assume that humans are always going to have that edge?


Originally Posted by Coidzor
You sound like you're playing tactically while they're playing by the seat of their pants. So really it sounds like you need to have a talk with your players about what kind of game they want and decide if you're the person to give it to them. Might be they're expecting a simpler, beer-and-pretzels kind of game.

This is much better advice.

[ksbsnowowl]

Broad daylight, Dense forest, all failed each spot/listen check I gave them(both rather). Plus the goblins already knew of the intruders because of their scouts, so they stayed pretty quietly.

Gotcha, it wasn't very clear in the initial post. Then I think you were 100% in the right.

[3WhiteFox3]

I really can't fathom the logic for this. Where is it written that nonhumanoids always have to be less intelligent than humans? Why assume that humans are always going to have that edge?

Let's say my party has the following.

Fighter who is a former soldier who had tactical training and high discipline.
18 Intelligence Wizard who has studied and practiced practical magic for years.
High Wisdom cleric who has a natural intuition (something very difficult to emulate via role-playing alone)
Rogue with above-average intelligence, but has both savvy and cunning on his side.

Whereas the players are unlikely to have much battle or tactical experience nor will they have the natural intelligence, intuition or street savvy. They may, but if they don't why penalize the characters who definitely have those qualities? The fact is, very few players are actual tacticians or soldiers, and they definitely aren't the heroes that D&D assumes the characters are.

Those characters should have a grasp on any normal tactics created by monsters with less tactical experience or intelligence. If the players don't have this understanding you shouldn't cripple the statistics of the characters to compensate while playing the monsters at average or above average (like I said, many people over-estimate average human intelligence, typically because they are above-average themselves). Somewhere a compromise should be made so as to not unfairly screw over the players.

[sambouchah]

You sound like you're playing tactically while they're playing by the seat of their pants. So really it sounds like you need to have a talk with your players about what kind of game they want and decide if you're the person to give it to them. Might be they're expecting a simpler, beer-and-pretzels kind of game.

They always complain after other's sessions that things are either A) Not challenging enough, or B ) Too little roleplay. So I've fixed both and they complain that it's too much. Now I know their character's potential, a Dread Necromancer, a Sorcerer, a Bard and a Swashbuckler. Not the most rounded party, but still can slaughter some goblins with a small amount of effort. They just are Blasting, Saving Spell Slots(for nothing), Trying to be Diplomatic after they're already being attacked/have attacked, etc. If they would cast a Sleep or Touch of Fatigue they would win much more easily, even with the Sorcerer's Precocious Apprentice(for the Spell Alter Self) they are getting their rears handed to them.


Do they still win every fight regardless of their poor tactics? They might start trying to play smarter after a few losses.

They have a GREAT chance to win(as mentioned above), they just aren't utilizing their abilities at all. Currently they're talking to Carrion(the Outlaw Hobgoblin Duskblade) about owing him their lives in return for freedom(meaning he has four new personal... pets lets say). So I haven't killed them or anything yet.

I will need to work on getting to that happy medium where I can enjoy having them mauled and they can handle themselves.

[Mnemnosyne]

Here's the problem: most DMs play most monsters stupidly. Therefore, most people expect monsters to be played stupidly.

I'm of the opinion that yes, you should go against this and play monsters up to whatever int they're listed as having, which means that goblins can be as smart as humans. If they're actually acting in an organized military force with practice, command, leaders, and drills, they should be as organized as soldiers and respond as quickly and efficiently as a military installation, while if they're just loosely gathered together they may act as more of a mob, but they'll still have some level of basic tactical awareness; surrounding, flanking, identifying really threatening enemies.

On the other hand, players aren't supposed to ask for spot or listen checks. As far as I am concerned, that's entirely in the DM's camp, except when the players are specifically looking for something; the DM should make the rolls whenever the players might be capable of seeing or hearing something, and then simply inform them what they have spotted. Spotting things is a passive skill; the characters do not walk around with their eyes closed and their ears plugged until they declare they want to make a spot check.

Now, if you're trying to adapt things to your players, you can adjust the enemies based on their reaction. I don't mean modifying the number of enemies or even their abilities, just their actions. If they're exploring a dungeon and their first encounter with its inhabitants goes really well for them, assuming the rest have some way of knowing (ideally one of the back-line of the first encounter escaped to warn the rest) then the rest of the dungeon should see them facing highly prepared enemies that have a plan. If they, on the other hand, struggled through the first fight and only won through sheer luck, the rest of the enemies in the dungeon may laugh at their weakness and make stupid mistakes; boldly declare that they alone will kill at least two of the weak invaders, not bother to set up ambushes and well-planned fights, and generally being somewhat dumber, as long as it's in-character for that particular type of enemy.

As far as basing average human intelligence off your players, I would agree with that if the players are trying their best, and it's obvious they're putting real effort into it and they really are bad at tactics. I would absolutely not do so if it's clear that they're just being lazy and not bothering.

[Urpriest]

I really can't fathom the logic for this. Where is it written that nonhumanoids always have to be less intelligent than humans? Why assume that humans are always going to have that edge?



I'm not saying anything of the sort. The goblins are using a nonelite array, the PCs are using point-buy or rolling.

[Cirrylius]

However, perhaps they'll reconsider when faced with the biggest CR2 monster you can find, and have it refuse to run or do anything other than EAT THE HEALER THEN THE WIZARD:smallamused:

Don't. Seriously. Fleeing is a tactically horrible decision, and both player assumption and game design expect that you're not going to screw over players by dropping an overpowered, (relatively) obscure monster on them so they only realize two rounds in they're screwed and out of options and should have run from the start.

If your players are acting like idiots, it's because they don't know their options, which you need to explain, possibly repeatedly, or because they're ACTUALLY IDIOTS, which means you might have to dumb it down. This is just conjecture, but it sounds like they came into the game with a Linear, Kick Down the Door playstyle expectation. Show them other options.

If they're level one, part of the problem is they're still in the Rocket Tag part of the game; level one is no time to try the sink or swim approach on players. Once they gain a level or two, try having otherwise harmless monsters use tactics intelligently to make a nuisance out of themselves without actually seriously threatening them. Make tank or dodge tank monsters that don't do much damage, but can't be hit without flanking or tripping. Start pointing out geological features that would give them the advantage in combat, even if there are no threats nearby, just to plant the seed for later. Give them opportunities to ambush CR appropriate threats, so they can see just how dangerous it is not to play tactically. Spell it out it if you have to (old grizzled ranger says that your only chance of success is if you hit them unexpectedly at the edge of this cliff. Old grizzled ranger is caught in a beartrap and can't move, and monsters are coming, so you better follow his advice and hide)

Edit: Holy God, meganinja'd:smalleek:

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Urpriest
The goblins are using a nonelite array, the PCs are using point-buy or rolling.

Entirely beside the point. Just because someone has a theoretically higher number doesn't mean they'll use it effectively--nor that they have a right to expect everyone else won't use theirs to equal or greater effect.

At some point in the history of the OP's world, a clever group of goblins is going to cross paths with a dim group of humans. The OP's players seem to be intent on filling the role of the dim humans.

Sambouchah, go on playing your antagonists intelligently. Talk to your players as Coidzor suggested, but keep in mind there's no a priori reason you need to handicap your critters' combat acumen to make them easy kills.

[3WhiteFox3]

Entirely beside the point. Just because someone has a theoretically higher number doesn't mean they'll use it effectively--nor that they have a right to expect everyone else won't use theirs to equal or greater effect. But that cuts both ways, you don't have to play the goblins to the hilt of their intelligence either. You can, but there is no requirement to do so, especially if it's hurting the fun of the group.



Sambouchah, go on playing your antagonists intelligently. Talk to your players as Coidzor suggested, but keep in mind there's no a priori reason you need to handicap your critters' combat acumen to make them easy kills.

On the other had, I agree with this, you don't have to handicap your critters, but you should also work with your players to create the best game. Remember you aren't the player's enemy. Keep it fun.

[OldTrees1]

Personally I assume any sizable population of creatures will have some diversity in their ability scores. The chief probably has more Cha & Con, the advisor has more Int & Wis, the champion has more Str & Dex, some wimps have lower scores too.

[Flickerdart]

All monsters live in a dangerous and brutal world full of, well, monsters. They also frequently own large sums of treasure that are coveted by adventurers. Monsters don't have the luxury of training in a safe place before they set out into the world - if you run across a monster, chances are that it has been in many fights to the death already, and since it's not dead, has survived them. Goblins and similar weak tribal creatures understand best of all that fighting dumb isn't an option for them.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Flickerdart
...if you run across a monster, chances are that it has been in many fights to the death already, and since it's not dead, has survived them. Goblins and similar weak tribal creatures understand best of all that fighting dumb isn't an option for them.

All of this, entirely so.

[sambouchah]

Here's the problem: most DMs play most monsters stupidly. Therefore, most people expect monsters to be played stupidly.

I'm of the opinion that yes, you should go against this and play monsters up to whatever int they're listed as having, which means that goblins can be as smart as humans. If they're actually acting in an organized military force with practice, command, leaders, and drills, they should be as organized as soldiers and respond as quickly and efficiently as a military installation, while if they're just loosely gathered together they may act as more of a mob, but they'll still have some level of basic tactical awareness; surrounding, flanking, identifying really threatening enemies.

On the other hand, players aren't supposed to ask for spot or listen checks. As far as I am concerned, that's entirely in the DM's camp, except when the players are specifically looking for something; the DM should make the rolls whenever the players might be capable of seeing or hearing something, and then simply inform them what they have spotted. Spotting things is a passive skill; the characters do not walk around with their eyes closed and their ears plugged until they declare they want to make a spot check.

Now, if you're trying to adapt things to your players, you can adjust the enemies based on their reaction. I don't mean modifying the number of enemies or even their abilities, just their actions. If they're exploring a dungeon and their first encounter with its inhabitants goes really well for them, assuming the rest have some way of knowing (ideally one of the back-line of the first encounter escaped to warn the rest) then the rest of the dungeon should see them facing highly prepared enemies that have a plan. If they, on the other hand, struggled through the first fight and only won through sheer luck, the rest of the enemies in the dungeon may laugh at their weakness and make stupid mistakes; boldly declare that they alone will kill at least two of the weak invaders, not bother to set up ambushes and well-planned fights, and generally being somewhat dumber, as long as it's in-character for that particular type of enemy.

As far as basing average human intelligence off your players, I would agree with that if the players are trying their best, and it's obvious they're putting real effort into it and they really are bad at tactics. I would absolutely not do so if it's clear that they're just being lazy and not bothering.

They're used to kick down the door, but with one of the group spending mass amounts of his own free time reading things about military tactics and things like that I expected them to do much better than they did.

I tried doing passive perception, they didn't enjoy that. I now have them see things as if taking ten unless they roll it themselves. But still, even if my DM is doing passive perception, I(personally) request spot/listen checks every ten minutes just to be safe. I've stopped many a pickpocket that way.

They, for the most part, are being lazy and not trying until it's too late for them to do anything against their foes.

[3WhiteFox3]

All monsters live in a dangerous and brutal world full of, well, monsters. They also frequently own large sums of treasure that are coveted by adventurers. Monsters don't have the luxury of training in a safe place before they set out into the world - if you run across a monster, chances are that it has been in many fights to the death already, and since it's not dead, has survived them. Goblins and similar weak tribal creatures understand best of all that fighting dumb isn't an option for them.

Again, that cuts both ways. Adventuring is dangerous, and adventurers had to do something dangerous to get to 1st level (or they'd still be NPCs). Also, those dangers also exist for the non-monsters as well. They live in a world where demons try to infiltrate cities, monsters take up residence in the sewers, every cellar is infested with rats, and cats can kill commoners. Not to mention the normal dangers of thieves, thugs, invading monsters or armies. So characters should be just as savvy and not be played dumb either, but if the players aren't capable of that (or are learning) playing the monsters realistically is bad. Why? The game is supposed to be fun, if fun is being sacrificed for realism, somethings wrong. Realism should enhance fun, not squash it under heel.

EDIT: @OP - if they are just being lazy, then you need to give them a jolt and make them want to play better tactics. Something to realize, however, is that large-scale military tactics often don't translate well towards players. Something that's always frustrated me, player tactics is often based on working together with small-scale tactics but many GMs have monsters/npcs work together perfectly without any problems. Small scale tactics are also much harder to execute properly, especially as each unit is being played differently without the high discipline most such squads would have in real life.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by sambouchah
They, for the most part, are being lazy and not trying until it's too late for them to do anything against their foes.

You know your players better than any of us, and this seems to be the heart of it.

: /

[Slipperychicken]

All monsters live in a dangerous and brutal world full of, well, monsters. They also frequently own large sums of treasure that are coveted by adventurers. Monsters don't have the luxury of training in a safe place before they set out into the world - if you run across a monster, chances are that it has been in many fights to the death already, and since it's not dead, has survived them. Goblins and similar weak tribal creatures understand best of all that fighting dumb isn't an option for them.

Basically any predator should have basic concepts of tactics and target selection (i.e. take down the weak-looking one, disable the legs so it can't run), otherwise they wouldn't have survived for long. Wolves are known to stalk their prey for a while before deciding on whether to attack or not.

Similarly, even animals know to turn tail and run when a fight isn't worth it. It's usually better to go hungry for another week than to risk grievous injury. Hunger is easy to remedy (just find some more prey), but an arrow to the face will likely mean death from bleeding and infection.

[3WhiteFox3]

You know your players better than any of us, and this seems to be the heart of it.

: /

Not necessarily, motives can be very hard to determine after all. Maybe they just don't find hard tactical thinking fun or they don't think that they will be rewarded for being clever (I've found this to be a problem with many players who have had bad GMs previously). The amount of effort put in must be reciprocated with at least that much reward/fun in exchange. If someone doesn't want to put in the effort, it's prudent to ask why they aren't. They might just be lazy, but they may have other issues that aren't as readily apparent.

But honestly, ask your players what they want out of a game and try and see if there are areas that they seem to get the most fun out of and focus on those. Increasing the tactics of the monsters can be effective, but if laziness isn't the core issue, then your efforts are only going to cause friction and make them not want to play anymore. Reward them for clever play, introduce factors that can be used in their favor (Terrain, improvised weapons, play a bit loosely with some of the rules to emphasize intelligent play rather than the same basic tactics over and over, etc...).

[Coidzor]

They always complain after other's sessions that things are either A) Not challenging enough, or B ) Too little roleplay. So I've fixed both and they complain that it's too much.

Then, A. you need to modulate better to find the sweet spot(which will probably require B anyway) or B. sit down and have real talk with your group, possibly as individuals first and then as a group.

Or you need to direct them to resources so they can actually lrn2play to your standards.

[Firechanter]

I guess I'm gonna take up a cudgel for your players, at least partially -- the way you handled that encounter may or may not have been fine in all its details, I wouldn't know because I wasn't there. But I have also seen DMs who played their monsters/NPCs _way_ more intelligently than was credible. Int 10 is definitely not enough for a tactical genius.
If they were led by an experienced and clever guy, such as that Hobbo, fine, that's one thing. However, individuals do not necessarily obey all orders or follow all plans perfectly.

For some practical lessons in swarm stupidity, I advise playing a few rounds in an arbitrary online PvP game. Be it LoL or WoT or whatever. You will find players who have played ten thousand battles and _still_ don't have a basic grasp of tactics. And even if someone tries to coordinate them, more often than not they'll ignore those instructions. They might refuse an order to attack and prefer to hide somewhere because they are afraid to die in a video game. Now transpose that to the mindset of a Goblin warrior (as far as I remember, gobbos are stereotyped sorta cowardish anyway).

I'm not saying all the enemies should be cowardly idiots, but always keep in mind: if Int 10 is the _average_ intelligence, then about half of all specimen of that race will be dumber than that.

Reminds me of a former DM of mine, who tended to play all NPCs as superbrains who miraculously knew exactly what they had to do to overcome the players' defenses. In some cases it was okay, but we also reached a point where we had to have a talk about using meta-knowledge of our character sheets in combat.

[Kesnit]

Saving Spell Slots(for nothing),

You know that. Do they? They are level 1. They don't have a lot of spell slots. Use too many now, and there is a real chance of not having any when you need them. (Your Bard has 2 spells. The DN has 4. The SORC has 9.) Heck, if your Bard or DN cast 2 spells in a combat, they will run out before the end of the "standard, 4-encounter day."

On top of that, all your casters are spontaneous casters with a set number of spells known. Are they saving spells "for nothing," or are they not casting because they believe the spells they have aren't applicable?

[Captainspork]

I'm not saying anything of the sort. The goblins are using a nonelite array, the PCs are using point-buy or rolling.

I would caution using ability scores to judge one's ability to understand and execute tactics, though. I don't know that "intelligence" always equates to being "combat savvy". Sure they may have the capability, but its plausible that a group of adventurers (especially low lvl) could have never seen real combat, as opposed to a goblin clan (led by an intelligent hobgoblin no less) likely knows nothing but war and combat.

[3WhiteFox3]

I would caution using ability scores to judge one's ability to understand and execute tactics, though. I don't know that "intelligence" always equates to being "combat savvy". Sure they may have the capability, but its plausible that a group of adventurers (especially low lvl) could have never seen real combat, as opposed to a goblin clan (led by an intelligent hobgoblin no less) likely knows nothing but war and combat.

You're trying to tell me that the main difference between a 1st-level NPC and a 1st-level PC is that the PC has less experience in a fight? How the hell does that work? How is the PC worse than the NPC? How did the PC become a PC in the first place if he's absolutely incompetent in battle? I'm sorry, monsters should be weaker and less experienced than the PCs not more. That's just following the logic that PCs are special and NPCs aren't, as well as the CR.

Also, goblins are likely to be cowardly, not follow orders unless they are being led with an iron grip, misinterpret orders, rout at the first sign of trouble and have no clue about tactics (that's the leaders job). If the goblins were experienced they'd have more levels. That's just the very basics of how a level based system works.

[NightbringerGGZ]

Yeah. Put an anhkeg in their way and see what happens.

I charged one with a level 1 Magus. That was not the smartest choice on my part. :smallsmile:


Players should be smart when they're adventuring. If they just want to wander around and blunder into enemies, they should expect to take casualties. But if your group isn't used to this kind of thinking then you may want to ease them into it.

[Brookshw]

Don't. Seriously. Fleeing is a tactically horrible decision, and both player assumption and game design expect that you're not going to screw over players by dropping an overpowered, (relatively) obscure monster on them so they only realize two rounds in they're screwed and out of options and should have run from the start.
:

Hmmm, iirc the game design assumes 4 or 5% of encounters WILL be overpowered and nearly unwin-able.

[Blackhawk748]

Also, goblins are likely to be cowardly, not follow orders unless they are being led with an iron grip, misinterpret orders, rout at the first sign of trouble and have no clue about tactics (that's the leaders job). If the goblins were experienced they'd have more levels. That's just the very basics of how a level based system works.

Ok first goblins dont rout at the first sign of trouble, they rout when things look bad, like when half of them die, remember that the goblin in the MM is a WARRIOR, meaning he fights, its his job, so hes at least decent at it. Now what your saying would be true of a goblin militia or a group of slaves, but i think a squad of goblin warriors led by a hobgoblin sergeant would have at least a basic sense of tactics, at least those tactics that pertain to their job. Like the Sniper knowing that the tree is a good place to sit because of cover and sight ranges, or the skirmishers hiding behind a log so they cant get shot etc.

Im not saying goblins dont need a good leader, but so does every other soldier. You take out the leader of any squad and you probably just screwed them up majorly.

[Mnemnosyne]

For some practical lessons in swarm stupidity, I advise playing a few rounds in an arbitrary online PvP game. Be it LoL or WoT or whatever. You will find players who have played ten thousand battles and _still_ don't have a basic grasp of tactics. And even if someone tries to coordinate them, more often than not they'll ignore those instructions. They might refuse an order to attack and prefer to hide somewhere because they are afraid to die in a video game. Now transpose that to the mindset of a Goblin warrior (as far as I remember, gobbos are stereotyped sorta cowardish anyway).
I'm not sure that applies too well, because players playing a game do not have failure consequences like the goblins do. If they fail to follow orders and their side wins the day, then they're going to be severely punished by their superiors. If they fail to follow orders and their side loses, odds are good they're going to be killed by the winners regardless.

Not to say that they should always follow orders perfectly either, it's true that people break in combat pretty regularly. But they certainly won't frivolously do stupid things in combat because there's no penalty for losing. If you're going to take hints from how players behave in games, then you have to look at pro teams; they're the ones that behave like a unit that trained together. Being like a random battleground group or the zerg in Emain Macha is appropriate for an unruly mob, not for a group that has trained together at all.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by 3WhiteFox3
Also, goblins are likely to be cowardly, not follow orders unless they are being led with an iron grip, misinterpret orders, rout at the first sign of trouble and have no clue about tactics (that's the leaders job).

These are your assumptions about the creature, which may or may not be valid, and are hardly ironclad for someone else's campaign. "Likely" doesn't mean "always," and certainly doesn't mean "absolutely have to be or you're doing it thoroughly wrong."


Originally Posted by 3WhiteFox3
You're trying to tell me that the main difference between a 1st-level NPC and a 1st-level PC is that the PC has less experience in a fight? How the hell does that work?

To follow up on Flickerdart's point from earlier, and also to address this particular question: the PC has spent the first fifteen or twenty years of his life working as a prentice in a tanner's shop, or helping his uncles on the family farm, or any number of other mundane, civilized occupations. At best, he's been through a couple years in an academy or a guildhall if his parents can afford it.

The goblins, from birth, have been living a harsh, unpredictable existence where weakness and stupidity are swiftly culled. Their minds are bent on basic survival, not crops and trade, and that's the space in which the survivors of every generation are operating. Goblins are skulking, cunning killers from an early age, and they're called "savage humanoids" for a reason. That's how that works.

[Firechanter]

I'm not sure that applies too well, because players playing a game do not have failure consequences like the goblins do.

Well you're right in so far as players don't face real consequences for losing the match. However, you can also look at it the other way: as a player you don't really lose anything if your toon dies / vehicle is destroyed. And _still_ many players act like their own hides are at stake and try to avoid getting "hurt". In a game that is exclusively about fighting in the first place! EVEN THOUGH after a few thousand battles you'd think they'd understand that if their team loses, the enemy team will mop up all survivors and they'll die anyway. They seem to think that if they hide in the rear, the enemy will somehow magically disappear and leave them alone. Which they never do.

So to reiterate:
* the only reason to play the game is to fight
* getting killed and winning usually yields higher rewards than surviving and losing
* even getting killed and losing is not really punished
* not fighting almost certainly results in your destruction
--> there is NO REASON not to fight tooth and nails when you play the game.
And STILL there are many players who think that all this doesn't apply to them.
My whole point being: yes, people ARE that stupid.

The same way that such a noob player seems to think that he will somehow be spared if his team loses, a cowardly goblin may deceive himself into thinking he will somehow get away and not be punished for his failure.

Besides:

they're the ones that behave like a unit that trained together. Being like a random battleground group or the zerg in Emain Macha is appropriate for an unruly mob, not for a group that has trained together at all.

And that's the next thing. I doubt that primitive cultures will have formalized combat training with maneuvers and whatnot. When a young member becomes old enough, he gets a spear shoved in his hands with the instruction to stick the pointy end into the meaty bits. Those warriors will more likely be primarily hunters, not professional soldiers.

Of course, the soldiers of civilized societies may also be warriors (as per the npc class), but again, the extent of the combat training will be more like a militia at best. Not modern infantry and certainly no Special Forces team.

[Meth In a Mine]

Honestly, there are a LOT of monsters in the MM with poor (2>x<10) but innate cunning that lends them to be deadly opponents. For example, the Umber Hulk has Int 6 but still manages to be quite cunning, and Gnolls, who have Int 8 but have an innate understanding of teamwork and ambush tactics. And for goblins, they aren't dumb, their general demeanor does not lend itself well to large-scale organization. But they DO know how to fight dirty.
However: Hobgoblins, Duergar, and Fire Giants all have highly organized and militaristic societies, so those groups would likely be very adept combatants.
The ONLY monsters who should be run like your players imagine them are oozes, constructs, mindless undead, mundane animals, etc.

[sambouchah]

So creatures without intelligence(or very little, I.e. animals) should be played fight-to-the-death and everything else should be played as it's fluffed?

[Flickerdart]

So creatures without intelligence(or very little, I.e. animals) should be played fight-to-the-death and everything else should be played as it's fluffed?
Very few animals will fight to the death (except in cases where a mother is protecting her young). The primary motivation for an animal's attack is that it either wants to eat you (and will leave if it feels the effort or danger isn't worth the meal) or it feels threatened (and will leave if its fear of you exceeds its determination to scare you away).

[CrazyYanmega]

Also, goblins are likely to be cowardly, not follow orders unless they are being led with an iron grip, misinterpret orders, rout at the first sign of trouble and have no clue about tactics (that's the leaders job). If the goblins were experienced they'd have more levels. That's just the very basics of how a level based system works.

Eh, this is a poor interpretation of goblins, but better than my DM's first impression of them. He kept lining them up in perfect order for his DMPC ranger to perform Great Cleave. "It's because goblins are stupid! What, are you too stupid to realize that?"

EDIT:

So creatures without intelligence(or very little, I.e. animals) should be played fight-to-the-death and everything else should be played as it's fluffed?
I personally think that in order to get them up to a level where they can perform advanced tactics, have your Hobgoblin negotiate a peace treaty that requires the PC's to take on a bunch of skeletons. Mindless, dumb as bricks, but can occur in sufficient numbers that the PCs will think twice about charging.

[QuackParker]

I'd say it really depends. A monster with a 10 Int shouldn't be masterfully directing its monstrous allies into clever formations to make the best use of their attacks of opportunity etc.

BUT, a goblin shouldn't just impale himself on a PC's spear either.

Personally, I like to try to make some encounters a little savvier and other times, maybe the orcs do line up conveniently for a great cleave.

DM Buddha says to "Moderate the Middle Path."

[Drachasor]

My gaming group seems to think that everything that animals and goblinoid races (and kobolds and so forth) should be dumb as a bag of rocks.

Animals flank or use pack tactics? No way! Even though they do this in the wild.

Goblins have plans and use any sort of coordination? Couldn't happen! Even though even CE enemies that regular raid are going to have a semblance of tactics. They might not be hugely coordinated in combat, but flanking, ambushes, sentries, and so forth aren't going to be beyond them.

This really doesn't make any sense, but they'll complain about how how "smart" my brother (the DM) plays the NPCs. They tend to ignore the stupid stuff some NPCs do (because my brother does play them at different levels).

I think part of it is just because my group has a hard time coordinating themselves out of a paper bag at times. Half the time individual tactics are mediocre. :(

They also tend to ignore time when we come across goblins sleeping when they are on sentry duty or the like. Confirmation Bias at work -- they expect enemies to be "too tactical" so they ignore evidence to the contrary. I do think there can be groups where there is no "sweet spot" here, since they look for problems.

[Amphetryon]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with playing Monsters to their INT scores; there's actually quite a lot right with that approach. However, it's important that the Players know that this will be the case going in, as this may not be typical of their experience.

Your Players have been sufficiently warned at this point. They complained because they were surprised and because things went badly for them. In the future, they should not be so surprised, and should have less grounds for complaint if things go badly.

[skyth]

But they didn't request any. By request I mean making Track checks, or using Spot/Listen to find the camp before stumbling inside.

Right there goes to the root of the problem. There are different expectations between you and the players and really a lack of respect for the players' expectations.

[Firechanter]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with playing Monsters to their INT scores; there's actually quite a lot right with that approach.

Agreed, that's perfectly fine. The dispute is rather what tactical prowess a certain Int score enables. Not every average Joe is a second Hannibal. Most successful maneuvers were devised by one exceptional individual, then applied for centuries by people who wouldn't have come up with them themselves. Occasionally another smart guy refines or updates these tactics. This of course gives an edge to civilized cultures that preserve knowledge and systematically try to improve it.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by skyth
Right there goes to the root of the problem. There are different expectations between you and the players and really a lack of respect for the players' expectations.

Can't say I agree with this. The players seem to want their monsters bone-stupid and all their encounters easy-peasy. As a DM, these aren't expectations I'd feel too compelled to "respect."

And as Amphetryon points out, the OP's players have been sufficiently warned by now. After this, it's really all on them.


Originally Posted by Drachasor
I do think there can be groups where there is no "sweet spot" here, since they look for problems.

Agreed, and let's hope the OP's group can move past that attitude.

[Coidzor]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with playing Monsters to their INT scores; there's actually quite a lot right with that approach. However, it's important that the Players know that this will be the case going in, as this may not be typical of their experience.

That's not at issue here, it's more a matter of playstyles and expectations and, as said, the need for clear communication rather than making assumptions off of half-assed comments.


Your Players have been sufficiently warned at this point. They complained because they were surprised and because things went badly for them. In the future, they should not be so surprised, and should have less grounds for complaint if things go badly.

Assuming that there is no possibility for there being any issue and not having any kind of plan for how to proceed is probably the worst thing he could do as a DM without actively going out of his way to be an ass. :smallconfused:


Can't say I agree with this. The players seem to want their monsters bone-stupid and all their encounters easy-peasy. As a DM, these aren't expectations I'd feel too compelled to "respect."

From what little we have to go on, it would be more appropriate to say they seem to want something more challenging than bone-stupid but also less capable of easily slaughtering them. Sambouchah has basically stated this in his posts. :smallconfused:

They seem like they may be looking for the happy medium of "the Dungeon of Monsters That Are Just Strong Enough to Really Challenge You, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0492.html)" if anything.

My personal take on the matter is that he needs to communicate more thoroughly with them about their expectations, desired power level, what power level they're actually playing at right now, if they want to change that, how to change that, etc. Largely because he seemed quick to jump to conclusions rather than talk to them.

[Frozen_Feet]

Remember, the players outnumber you. Goblins should be played to human average intelligence, yes, but take your clue as to "human average intelligence" from the players. If they're bad at tactics, then why should the goblins be any better?

This is a really sly way of saying someone's players might not be the sharpest knifes in the drawer. I approve. :smallamused:

Me, I play monsters as dumb when their entry says they are dumb. When it says they're intelligent, I play them to the extent my intelligence allows. Occasionally, this leads to players claiming I think in absurdly twisty lines. Occasionally, random chance throws me all out of whack or my players surprise me with sudden tactical insight.

[Coidzor]

This is a really sly way of saying someone's players might not be the sharpest knifes in the drawer. I approve. :smallamused:

Well, yeah. And if one's reaction as a DM is to punish them for the intellects that nature bestowed upon them, one probably shouldn't be DMing. At least not for people one even perceives as less intelligent than one's self.

And if one wants the players to start thinking more in certain ways that they haven't really been trained for or have a natural inclination towards, negative reinforcement is probably the worst way to go about it.

[skyth]

As a DM, these aren't expectations I'd feel too compelled to "respect."

Then you shouldn't be DM'ing for that group. If you're out to punish the players rather than play together to have a good time, you're in the wrong game. Might I suggest Paranoia? ;)

[CrazyYanmega]

Then you shouldn't be DM'ing for that group. If you're out to punish the players rather than play together to have a good time, you're in the wrong game. Might I suggest Paranoia? ;)

Kindly explain how YOU would "respect" these players. From what I can tell, that entails turning the D&D GAME into a bad D&D self mastubatory fanfic, with weak enemies swarming the cleaver, lining up for the piercing shot, grouping together for the Fireballs, and otherwise just throwing themselves on the blades of the "heroes" with no sense of self preservation.

How such goblins could ever be a problem for even a commoner is beyond me. Quite frankly, if goblins are played like this, there SHOULDN'T BE ANY GOBLINS ANY MORE. They'd already be killed by the local guards, or a passing owlbear, or they drowned when they looked up at the sky while it was raining! It's called natural selection, and D&D is a brutal world. If a goblin is going to survive, it has to be CLEVER.

So, Skyth. Might I suggest the Tales of Drizz't?

[Silentone98]

I had this same argument over kobolds recently... one of my new players tried telling me how dumb they are and im just like... "what? I have never seen anything that supports this outside of how dumb people choose to play them." And promptly showed him the stats, base creature same as human, and no penalties for a "as character"

So like others here, I don't see any reason for your monsters to be played less intelligent than they are.
I will however argue that if they are pulling off some insane military level stuff, that a military tactician is NOT average intelligence(although they 'might' have someone capable of this)- and being uncivilized generalally means unorganized and ill-prepared as well. So play em smart! Just not too smart.

@Crazy

It's called natural selection, and D&D is a brutal world. If a goblin is going to survive, it has to be CLEVER.
Horny goblins work to,... breed like rabbits... yep, must be

[skyth]

Kindly explain how YOU would "respect" these players. From what I can tell, that entails turning the D&D GAME into a bad D&D self mastubatory fanfic, with weak enemies swarming the cleaver, lining up for the piercing shot, grouping together for the Fireballs, and otherwise just throwing themselves on the blades of the "heroes" with no sense of self preservation.

Yes...Let's do our best to make sure the players can never ever play with their toys...They're sure to enjoy the game that way. Of course, the enemies all know from the get go exactly the capabilities of the players are so that they instantly counter them from the outset. All GM's should play just to show how mentally superior they are to the imbecile players...Yes...That's the way for everyone to play the game...

Sorry, but you have to talk with the players (With, not AT and not down to) and see what they are looking for. Having a game where the players constantly have to be paranoid and plan in excruciating detail what they want to do and ask for spot/listen checks every other round to make sure they aren't surprised is not fun for a lot of people. I game as an escape, not as a life and death situation that has to be taken super-serious where one wrong step is often the last one.

[Coidzor]

Kindly explain how YOU would "respect" these players. From what I can tell, that entails turning the D&D GAME into a bad D&D self mastubatory fanfic, with weak enemies swarming the cleaver, lining up for the piercing shot, grouping together for the Fireballs, and otherwise just throwing themselves on the blades of the "heroes" with no sense of self preservation.

I'd recommend re-reading what was actually written on the subject and re-examining your assumptions, mostly, as you seem to be making sweeping accusations that are not supported by what has been stated by the DM and the DM's statements have called the reliability of the DM's statements about certain aspects of what is going on into question until they have gone through and investigated the situation more thoroughly. :smallconfused:

[Captainspork]

You're trying to tell me that the main difference between a 1st-level NPC and a 1st-level PC is that the PC has less experience in a fight? How the hell does that work? How is the PC worse than the NPC? How did the PC become a PC in the first place if he's absolutely incompetent in battle? I'm sorry, monsters should be weaker and less experienced than the PCs not more. That's just following the logic that PCs are special and NPCs aren't, as well as the CR.

Also, goblins are likely to be cowardly, not follow orders unless they are being led with an iron grip, misinterpret orders, rout at the first sign of trouble and have no clue about tactics (that's the leaders job). If the goblins were experienced they'd have more levels. That's just the very basics of how a level based system works.

I think the fact that the PCs have superior stats (point buy or rolls) makes them special. Does possessing athletic ability equate to ones ability to fight? Or massive intelligence? It doesn't really work that way. Your response implies that Npcs (and, subsequently the PCs) are limited in their ability to come up with complex plans based upon level. Has anyone ever told PCs they couldn't come up with a proposed plan based on level?

"Experience" as defined for leveling, and experience in devising tactical plans are two separate items. A wizard could easily reach low levels by simply studying within the walls of an academy, practicing his arts and preparing for the day he leaves. I don't know how that gives him experience in war.

I think the main thing, to reiterate what the above poster (skyth) said, is to find out what type of games your players want to play, and plan accordingly. If they want a game where they just charge in and kill things, then maybe your arrangement just isn't meant to be.

p.s. I'd be curious to know what the DC was for the party to detect the goblin party. When I think of goblins, I don't necessarily think "sneaky". Sorry if that was posted earlier, can't see it all on my phone here

[Silentone98]

I think the fact that the PCs have superior stats (point buy or rolls) makes them special. Does possessing athletic ability equate to ones ability to fight? Or massive intelligence? It doesn't really work that way. Your response implies that Npcs (and, subsequently the PCs) are limited in their ability to come up with complex plans based upon level. Has anyone ever told PCs they couldn't come up with a proposed plan based on level?

"Experience" as defined for leveling, and experience in devising tactical plans are two separate items. A wizard could easily reach low levels by simply studying within the walls of an academy, practicing his arts and preparing for the day he leaves. I don't know how that gives him experience in war.

I think the main thing, to reiterate what the above poster (skyth) said, is to find out what type of games your players want to play, and plan accordingly. If they want a game where they just charge in and kill things, then maybe your arrangement just isn't meant to be.

p.s. I'd be curious to know what the DC was for the party to detect the goblin party. When I think of goblins, I don't necessarily think "sneaky". Sorry if that was posted earlier, can't see it all on my phone here

I mostly 99% agree with all the sentiments here, among you and others...
but at the same time "McDonalds, have it your way" doesn't sound like something I want in DnD all the time.(I don't think this is what you guys are saying? I sure hope not? lol) Needs some variation and sometimes that means getting shat on for poor decisions. Just my personal preference, I would hate to be rewarded for being stupid >.>

But yea... finding out what your group is looking for in a campaign is usually the first, or among the first steps to starting a game.

[skyth]

When I think of goblins, I don't necessarily think "sneaky".

I actually do think of Goblins as sneaky...Especially Bugbears :) Hobgoblins, not so much.

Of course, how did the Goblin scouts notify the main camp...If you're using stealth, you move at half speed unless you take some serious penalties...

[CrazyYanmega]

Yes...Let's do our best to make sure the players can never ever play with their toys...They're sure to enjoy the game that way. Of course, the enemies all know from the get go exactly the capabilities of the players are so that they instantly counter them from the outset. All GM's should play just to show how mentally superior they are to the imbecile players...Yes...That's the way for everyone to play the game...

What I'm SAYING is that if the goblins see a PC rip a third of their forces apart in less than 3 seconds with just one sword swing, they aren't going to just keep lining up for the same thing to happen again. They'd switch up their tactics and start using ranged weapons. Creatures are going to start spreading out after that first fireball, or do you think that goblins should think "Hmm, that guy just killed squad 8 with a massive ball of fire. We should stick closer together."

I'm willing to bet that you also expect dragons not to perform strafing runs in combat, bulettes not to burrow and attack from below, and for blink dogs to not blink.

[3WhiteFox3]

I think the fact that the PCs have superior stats (point buy or rolls) makes them special. Does possessing athletic ability equate to ones ability to fight? Or massive intelligence? It doesn't really work that way. Your response implies that Npcs (and, subsequently the PCs) are limited in their ability to come up with complex plans based upon level. Has anyone ever told PCs they couldn't come up with a proposed plan based on level?

"Experience" as defined for leveling, and experience in devising tactical plans are two separate items. A wizard could easily reach low levels by simply studying within the walls of an academy, practicing his arts and preparing for the day he leaves. I don't know how that gives him experience in war.

I think the main thing, to reiterate what the above poster (skyth) said, is to find out what type of games your players want to play, and plan accordingly. If they want a game where they just charge in and kill things, then maybe your arrangement just isn't meant to be.

p.s. I'd be curious to know what the DC was for the party to detect the goblin party. When I think of goblins, I don't necessarily think "sneaky". Sorry if that was posted earlier, can't see it all on my phone here

My main point is that my expectation is that PCs shouldn't feel woefully outperformed by the most basic of monsters. CR doesn't necessarily equate to tactical knowledge, but it should equate to competence (CR and monster level are equated in the system). That's the whole point of having a CR system, to judge how dangerous the monsters are compared to the players. If there is any factor that sways that, it should be a part of the total. I know that the DMG doesn't talk about that fact much, but it's true; actual challenge is about much more than CR. If tactics are making even the most basic of monsters exceedingly dangerous, that should impact the game and not just keep doing it and slaughtering your players.

There's a difference between monsters playing like idiots and demolishing the players due to smart tactics. I don't like being crushed, I want a challenge and I know for a fact that tactics alone can be a major factor for that.

Other players may have different expectations, but part of the DM's job is to bridge their expectations and the players' to make the best game possible. I definitely agree that different groups want to play different games. Communication is always key, and if you're players are complaining the best thing to do is examine your DMing style and try to find out what you do that the players want to see more of.

[Man on Fire]

Remember, the players outnumber you. Goblins should be played to human average intelligence, yes, but take your clue as to "human average intelligence" from the players. If they're bad at tactics, then why should the goblins be any better? The goblins may be at human average intelligence, but the PCs probably have higher intelligence, so the goblins' plans should still be worse than the PCs'.

It's not the game master's fault that players aren't capable of roleplaying their characters as they should and treat Intelligence and Wisdom as nothing but bonus spell source. If you're playing high intelligence character and bunch of goblins outsmart you, you're doing it wrong.

[Lanaya]

To follow up on Flickerdart's point from earlier, and also to address this particular question: the PC has spent the first fifteen or twenty years of his life working as a prentice in a tanner's shop, or helping his uncles on the family farm, or any number of other mundane, civilized occupations. At best, he's been through a couple years in an academy or a guildhall if his parents can afford it.

The goblins, from birth, have been living a harsh, unpredictable existence where weakness and stupidity are swiftly culled. Their minds are bent on basic survival, not crops and trade, and that's the space in which the survivors of every generation are operating. Goblins are skulking, cunning killers from an early age, and they're called "savage humanoids" for a reason. That's how that works.

So our PC has been a baker their whole life before deciding one day to set out on an adventure, and they're miraculously powerful enough to take on three of these hardened veterans single handedly? If your goblins are that much more experienced and capable than some soft, coddled PCs, they ought to be higher level, because that's how levels work. And why must all PCs be ordinary peasants from a civilised land? A wizard, maybe, but my orc barbarian came from the northern wastes where strangling bears to death and eating them is a daily routine. And my rogue lived on the streets from the age of five, outwitting and slitting the throats of guards to steal food. And my druid was raised by wolves, learning the art of hunting and pack tactics before learning how to talk. If all your PC's ever done in their life is farm turnips then why do you have a PC class at all? You're a level 1 commoner, not a fighter.

[Coidzor]

It's not the game master's fault that players aren't capable of roleplaying their characters as they should and treat Intelligence and Wisdom as nothing but bonus spell source. If you're playing high intelligence character and bunch of goblins outsmart you, you're doing it wrong.

OK then, we'll assume that's exactly what's happening here and is the case without caveat, proviso, or further clarification. What, then is the appropriate response once you've gone and established that as the case?

Acting Imperious? Rage quitting as DM? Having a discussion with the players about expectations and how the game is played? Forcing them to build better characters? Something completely different that no one has suggested so far?

[Captainspork]

My main point is that my expectation is that PCs shouldn't feel woefully outperformed by the most basic of monsters. CR doesn't necessarily equate to tactical knowledge, but it should equate to competence (CR and monster level are equated in the system). That's the whole point of having a CR system, to judge how dangerous the monsters are compared to the players. If there is any factor that sways that, it should be a part of the total. I know that the DMG doesn't talk about that fact much, but it's true; actual challenge is about much more than CR. If tactics are making even the most basic of monsters exceedingly dangerous, that should impact the game and not just keep doing it and slaughtering your players.

There's a difference between monsters playing like idiots and demolishing the players due to smart tactics. I don't like being crushed, I want a challenge and I know for a fact that tactics alone can be a major factor for that.

Other players may have different expectations, but part of the DM's job is to bridge their expectations and the players' to make the best game possible. I definitely agree that different groups want to play different games. Communication is always key, and if you're players are complaining the best thing to do is examine your DMing style and try to find out what you do that the players want to see more of.

It sounds like we agree here. As a player, you should (IMO) feel a challenge throughout the course of the game. But those challenges should feel "winnable". Otherwise why play?

As a DM, you need to play, in part, to your players expectations. I don't think it should be served to them on a platter, but if you aren't running a game they enjoy, then why play?



Originally Posted by Man on Fire
It's not the game master's fault that players aren't capable of roleplaying their characters as they should and treat Intelligence and Wisdom as nothing but bonus spell source. If you're playing high intelligence character and bunch of goblins outsmart you, you're doing it wrong.

To that point, that's fine if your players are on board. If not, well...good luck with that...

[Noedig]

Around my table we hold to the saying 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander.'

We hold it to mean that because the party plays intelligently, which they should, the world plays intelligently around them, when applicable. I will use every ounce of the mental stats that the monsters can muster and not feel bad about it when they catch my players off guard. Similarly, I cannot be upset when the players exploit my own mistakes.

[Frozen_Feet]

Kindly explain how YOU would "respect" these players.

Don't know about him, but I would respect them by doing what I usually do - continuing to hold games for them, providing with gaming material, and maybe giving them tactical advice or narrowing down their choices *).

*) Usually not telling what not to do, unless something is blatantly impossible. Rather, I offer a short list of distinct actions for the player to consider.

I might also point them towards encounters requiring less tactical expertise, or just make the next few encounters not require any. Some monsters are just civilians anyway. (In fact, 1st ed AD&D Monster Manual gave exact portions for civilians. :smallwink:)

[rmnimoc]

"McDonalds, have it your way" doesn't sound like something I want in DnD all the time

>.>

Pretty sure that's Burger King, which might be why it sounds wrong to you.

Anyway, I totally agree that monsters should be played to the best of their abilities, just so long as you are playing them to the best of their abilities and not the best of your abilities. Goblins trying to flank? That's good. Attacking from range when they see a guy with a huge sword? That's good. Knowing the exact ranges of the caster's spells and staying the exact distance away despite having no prior experience with the spell, no ranks in spellcraft, and no knowlege arcana? That's bad.

If a CR appropriate encounter takes up less than 1/4 of the players resources, you aren't playing it right (or the players have the perfect set of skills for the job). If every CR appropriate encounter takes up more than 1/4 of your players resources, you aren't playing it right. A level 1 goblin is every bit as much of a greenhorn as a level 1 human. He possesses any tactical knowledge that he managed to learn in that short time he has been around. If he and his band of friends have survived countless encounters, they aren't level 1 anymore. They are no longer that CR 1/3 1HD enemy. Also, there is this:

Being bullied by bigger, stronger creatures has taught goblins to exploit what few advantages they have: sheer numbers and malicious ingenuity. The concept of a fair fight is meaningless in their society. They favor ambushes, overwhelming odds, dirty tricks, and any other edge they can devise.

Goblins have a poor grasp of strategy and are cowardly by nature, tending to flee the field if a battle turns against them. With proper supervision, though, they can implement reasonably complex plans, and in such circumstances their numbers can be a deadly advantage.

They ambush, flank, and overwhelm, retreating to engage from range if that doesn't work, and running away to try again if that still doesn't work. They are capable of more complex plans with a hobgoblin at their sides, just like a militia. In fact, feel free to think of them as an evil militia. A fairly intelligent group with no formal military training, a poor grasp of strategy, but capable of rather impressive feats if lead by a more experienced commander. Also, try to remember that the "more experienced commander" in this sense if only a level 1 warrior.

Anyway, the important part is that as DM it is your job to make sure the players have fun. If they are complaining, they probably didn't have fun, and instead of looking for verification that the players are doing it wrong, talk to your players and figure out how YOU can make the game fun for them, because that is why they let you sit behind the fancy screen and tell them what to do.

[skyth]

I'm willing to bet that you also expect dragons not to perform strafing runs in combat, bulettes not to burrow and attack from below, and for blink dogs to not blink.

I expect PC's not to face encounters where they are unable to effectively contribute. Against a group with no ranged weapons, it's quite rude to have the PC's face a dragon that solely strafes the party with breath weapon and spells even though that's the best way for the dragon to win.

This is a game, played to have fun with...For some people that involves extreme tactical thinking...For others, it involves some hacking and slashing.

[Flickerdart]

If players find themselves facing against a strafing dragon and it turns out everyone forgot to bring ranged weapons, they should escape and come back better prepared to deal with the situation, or not come back at all because dragons are supposed to be dangerous and maybe they should let this one live.

[Twilightwyrm]

Let's be clear on something with regards to intelligence and tactics: the humans that invented the pincer attacks and phalanx shield walls are people of the same average intelligence as the tribal warriors that got stomped on by said tactics. The difference is the soldiers of about Int 10 in the former army were taught about these tactics by those that likely have a higher Int than 10. Your average being of Int 10, without the extensive schooling and access to the same resources that modern people have come to expect, would have about as much chance of just knowing complicated tactics as just knowing complicated medical facts and theories.
In this instance, unless they have a history of learning and amassing tactical data contrary to the normal portrayal of goblins, your average goblins are maybe half-a-step ahead of of the tribal warriors from the former example, and only because their smaller size means they need to make their numbers advantage count more. If you want to make Int 10 Hobgoblins do this, that may well be fine, as they actually have a history of amassing knowledge, even if it is strictly focused on warfare. But goblins? Barring exceptions, they aren't going to be doing much more than rushing and flanking.
It should be noted that this rule should go double for non-social Int 10 creatures, barring exceptional circumstances.

[TuggyNE]

If players find themselves facing against a strafing dragon and it turns out everyone forgot to bring ranged weapons, they should escape and come back better prepared to deal with the situation, or not come back at all because dragons are supposed to be dangerous and maybe they should let this one live.

Here a compromise is useful, per the principles of the Gentlemen's Agreement in my sig: parties without ranged weapons, or whatever, should find themselves in hot water because of that lack once or twice, but not continually, unless they have had ample opportunity and been reminded to correct this deficit. Having dragons that always politely stop and land to confront the greatswords and daggers of an inflexible party is silly, and having dragons that always carefully strafe at high speed and then move out of range while recharging is frustrating, so the answer lies between.

Dragons specifically are good candidates for the high-intelligence, good tactics end of the spectrum, of course, so should probably be played rather more frustrating than is normally acceptable, but that's not to say that they should simply shut out all but the highest-op parties entirely.

[3WhiteFox3]

Here a compromise is useful, per the principles of the Gentlemen's Agreement in my sig: parties without ranged weapons, or whatever, should find themselves in hot water because of that lack once or twice, but not continually, unless they have had ample opportunity and been reminded to correct this deficit. Having dragons that always politely stop and land to confront the greatswords and daggers of an inflexible party is silly, and having dragons that always carefully strafe at high speed and then move out of range while recharging is frustrating, so the answer lies between.

Dragons specifically are good candidates for the high-intelligence, good tactics end of the spectrum, of course, so should probably be played rather more frustrating than is normally acceptable, but that's not to say that they should simply shut out all but the highest-op parties entirely.
That's a very good point, lots of people talk about running Dragons 'properly'; rarely do I see people wondering if a dragon absolutely crushing players every single time is a good thing or not. Players shouldn't actively try to avoid Dragon fights after all, that's probably the opposite what most DMs want. As always the risk-to-reward and effort-to-fun ratios have to be carefully balanced to prevent player burnout.

[Slipperychicken]

That's a very good point, lots of people talk about running Dragons 'properly'; rarely do I see people wondering if a dragon absolutely crushing players every single time is a good thing or not. Players shouldn't actively try to avoid Dragon fights after all, that's probably the opposite what most DMs want. As always the risk-to-reward and effort-to-fun ratios have to be carefully balanced to prevent player burnout.

I typically have fun when an enemy proves itself a clever and worthy opponent, even when that means I lose. It rarely feels good to lose, but it's sort of like sportsmanship to me; if the opponent (in this case an NPC) wins fair and square, that's cause to respect the opponent and learn something from the experience. Of course, I do know that others may or may not share my attitude toward this.

Also, IIRC there are ways to fight well-played dragons and win. It's just a matter of entering the fight prepared to implement them.

[Silentone98]

>.>

Pretty sure that's Burger King, which might be why it sounds wrong to you.


LOL, McDonalds always sounds wrong to me :-p

but yea,.. idk how I ended up typing that, oops. I don't take this comment back however, as it is oddly fitting.




Onto the topic! I see a lot of assumptions here... I think its only fair to mention that most everything I am reading is subjective, and unfortunately its entirely possible(and likely) to end up with a group with varied tastes. This makes the current argument you guys are debating THAT much harder as now the DM needs to either cater to each individual or hope that one side dumbs down or the others wizen up. Either that or someone ends up taking a backseat.

No matter how it gets solved, someone is losing out here- and I'm not sure there's any easy solution at all outside of putting together a group with similar tastes
which for many is a battle all on it's own

[Man on Fire]

To that point, that's fine if your players are on board. If not, well...good luck with that...

Hey, if somebody makes character with 21 Int, I'm gonna assume he wants to play highly intelligent character and act accordingly. 21 Int means "Super Genius", this is what you write on your sheet. What else should I think?

[Coidzor]

Onto the topic! I see a lot of assumptions here... I think its only fair to mention that most everything I am reading is subjective, and unfortunately its entirely possible(and likely) to end up with a group with varied tastes. This makes the current argument you guys are debating THAT much harder as now the DM needs to either cater to each individual or hope that one side dumbs down or the others wizen up. Either that or someone ends up taking a backseat.

No matter how it gets solved, someone is losing out here- and I'm not sure there's any easy solution at all outside of putting together a group with similar tastes
which for many is a battle all on it's own

:smalltongue: Well, we're all getting ahead of ourselves, yes, largely because the DM hasn't reported back about what his investigation has found.

We don't know if this is some kind of zero sum game where all compromise would mean is that everyone loses. We really know very little, but we want to rectify that and beyond counseling the OP to go get more data that means making assumptions that just get more calcified and assume the worst as time goes by and they're challenged on the basis that they're assumptions rather than interpretations of what we actually have to go on.


Hey, if somebody makes character with 21 Int, I'm gonna assume he wants to play highly intelligent character and act accordingly. 21 Int means "Super Genius", this is what you write on your sheet. What else should I think?

The actual point of interest here is: "What are you going to do about it?"

[sambouchah]

p.s. I'd be curious to know what the DC was for the party to detect the goblin party. When I think of goblins, I don't necessarily think "sneaky". Sorry if that was posted earlier, can't see it all on my phone here

DC 15 Spot, DC 13 Listen. Each player failed and it was very frustrating to watch!


I expect PC's not to face encounters where they are unable to effectively contribute. Against a group with no ranged weapons, it's quite rude to have the PC's face a dragon that solely strafes the party with breath weapon and spells even though that's the best way for the dragon to win.

This is a game, played to have fun with...For some people that involves extreme tactical thinking...For others, it involves some hacking and slashing.

They haven't fought a true dragon yet, I can't wait to show them how scary a dragon really is.


:smalltongue: Well, we're all getting ahead of ourselves, yes, largely because the DM hasn't reported back about what his investigation has found.

We don't know if this is some kind of zero sum game where all compromise would mean is that everyone loses. We really know very little, but we want to rectify that and beyond counseling the OP to go get more data that means making assumptions that just get more calcified and assume the worst as time goes by and they're challenged on the basis that they're assumptions rather than interpretations of what we actually have to go on.



The actual point of interest here is: "What are you going to do about it?"

The players and I have talked and they have agreed to actually try to think logically rather than "Jump to the bottom of the bottomless pit, in search of treasure" after I explicitly stated "There is nothing at the bottom seeing as there is no bottom."

[3WhiteFox3]

I typically have fun when an enemy proves itself a clever and worthy opponent, even when that means I lose. It rarely feels good to lose, but it's sort of like sportsmanship to me; if the opponent (in this case an NPC) wins fair and square, that's cause to respect the opponent and learn something from the experience. Of course, I do know that others may or may not share my attitude toward this.

Also, IIRC there are ways to fight well-played dragons and win. It's just a matter of entering the fight prepared to implement them.

NOTE: This is my very opinionated perspective, I enjoy challenge to some degree but don't like games that I feel like are being grossly stacked for or against me. What 'grossly stacked' entails can only be defined (to a certain extent) by each person, and what challenge is acceptable varies from group to group; even player to player.

*I'm no deity, just a poster with an opinion*

The problem is that D&D is not a sport and it's not a competition, so the guidelines of sportsmanship just aren't required (just as certain rules for literature don't translate very well/at all into D&D). The reason for sportsmanship is so that the competition between two or more people is seen as something noble and it assumes that who is better in an area of skill needs to be proven in a fair manner. (At least, that's what I understand of sportsmanship anyway.)

In D&D no one is better than another (both the players and DM are equally needed to make the game work; a DM without players isn't roleplaying and vice-versa) and the very nature of the game is unfair. The DM has more power than any individual player (thus the necessity of the social contract/gentleman's agreement) even while playing in the boundaries of the rules. If the DM wants the dragon to win, he wins (barring extremely unusual circumstances), no questions asked. Sportsmanship is not needed to keep the game noble and fair, that's the job of the unspoken agreement between players and DM.

'We (the players) will play this game with you, submitting to your temporary authority within the context of the game, and we will do our best to keep things fun and civil. I (the DM) will not abuse the authority and trust given to me and I will do my best to make the game fun and civil.'

(I think that's a fairly reasonable distillation of the necessary elements of the gentlemen's agreement)

To conclude, the DM cannot lose, conversely, he also cannot win. In an RPG, the only 'winning' move is not to play... with 'bad' players or 'bad' DMs. After all, if a DM wants to beat the players, no skill is required (as in, rocks fall everyone dies requires no skill). That, I think, is what most separates D&D from M:TG or Descent.

tldr; sportsmanship as defined by the dragon example is not necessary in D&D; everything that it accomplishes is well and truly covered by the social contract necessary to have a fun game of D&D. Have fun first, and if ascribing to 'sportsmanship' is what gives the party the most fun, go and do that. Just realize that it isn't necessary at all. It's just one of the many ways to express yourself in D&D.

P.S. (because I don't know where to fit this) That's not to say that if someone dies or loses, that it's ok to act up. That's what the the agreement is there for in the first place.

[Anteros]

You guys realize it's a game right? If everyone at the table isn't having fun, why even play?

Your primary job as a DM is to make sure everyone is enjoying themselves (including yourself of course.) If you have to choose between "realism" and your player's enjoyment it should be an easy choice.

If you are DMing a game and everyone at the table is upset with you, then you are doing a poor job of being the DM. It doesn't matter who is technically correct by the rules.

[Enguebert]

Hey, if somebody makes character with 21 Int, I'm gonna assume he wants to play highly intelligent character and act accordingly. 21 Int means "Super Genius", this is what you write on your sheet. What else should I think?

You can play a character with less int than you, but it is hard to play smarter than you
In my group, there is a psion with Int 20, but the player is the one making silly errors during battle.
By stupid things, that means burning too many PP on weak target, bad position (vs a dragon, everyone split to avoid breath and he place himself just next to the wizard, ..)

Now on your groups
Learning tactic is something slow. Players can learn from previous games, but they also must learn their new characters and also learn to interact with other players/characters.
And of course, some players never learns :-)


Best thing to do is to make them learn slowly different tactics. The 5 first levels of a campaign is the ideal. For this

- start with very easy fights, and from time to time, monsters use one tactic
Example with goblins:
- first fight, goblin just use melee
- second fight, 2 goblins use flanking
- third fight, one goblin use a bow and cover
- 4th fight : one goblin use a reach weapon
- 5th fight : one goblin throws flask of oil...

Also, losing a combat doesn't always means death. If they are defeated by a band of thug, they may let the players alive and just rob all their material (at level 1, loss of equipement is painful, but can easily be replaced)

The idea is to show different tactics to the players.
Also rewards good idea. If they sent a scout (a good tactic), the first time they use this tactic, allow him to easily kill one or two opponents (goblin sentry was sleeping !).

Fleeing or surrending is also a viable tactic for ennemies. If players don't assassinate the thug who surrender, maybe next time they fight thug and if fight goes badly, players can surrender and just pay a ransom


Now, as DM, you should made clear to your players how monsters will be played.
I have made clear to my players that when they face a wizard or a dragon, they will probably face some smart tricks.
For rogue rogue, they should expect ambush, flanking and some poison.
And if they attack an organized group, the first thing that the sentry will do is to raise alarm. And if they do a small attack and retreat, either opponent will search them (and rope trick is not 100% secure) or will be prepared for the next time
And at higher level, monsters plays smarter. If they have good AC/HP, they will rather ignore the fighter and goes after the wizard or the cleric, even if they give AoO to the fighter.

[MadGreenSon]

The people I run for consider me a pretty good DM and I make things hard. Goblins? Sure, you can probably take a small group with very little planning. If you come across a warren of the little buggers that's got some numbers and has had time to flourish? Get ready, plan ahead, they're not pushovers at that point.
Also, Goblins are mean. Really mean. Make sure any wounds are treated with healing magic or at least well taken care of, after fighting Goblins because they will make sure their weapons are coated in filth and that has consequences.

Monster races aren't really any less "people" than any others in my games. They think, feel and act like they have brains in their heads. Sure they're not all geniuses, but they have had the time and cultural/social pressure to learn to play to their strengths.

And dragons? You don't casually fight dragons in my games. They live for tens of centuries and are beyond human intelligence. They are most explicitly not just what you see in the manuals when I run them.
If the dragon is only strafing you when you show up to hurt him, he must be in a good mood.
When I run dragon encounters, they're more often encounters not fights. Dragons have class levels in my games, almost always. The older the dragon, the more abilities/class levels they'll have. Killing a dragon of respectable age makes you a legend.

I get complimented for all of this. I'm told my game worlds feel plausible and that winning feels like winning.

[ace rooster]

I would say it should generally depend on how many tactical options the party use. If the group is enjoying themselves casually wandering around maiming things by hitting them on the head as fighters/rogues, then suddenly throwing advanced tactics at them will probably not be welcome. If it is a wizard team however, aiming for having a spell for any circumstance (lots of tactical options), throwing any mundane tactics you can think of is fair game. A wizard might consider a duel that doesn't involve standing 50ft from your opponent and blasting unsporting, but given that he has options like force cage for shutting down melee opponents or the 'that attack doesn't work' line of spells (protection from x/stoneskin/invisability/...), he does not get a say on sporting.

Opening up the tactics can be a useful balancing tool, as it can stop the wizard overshadowing everyone else. Even the party monk can contribute to tactical discussions, and as a scout he is second to none (except maybe the scout class). The party may still be a wizard delivery tool, but if every PC contributes to getting the wizard into the right place at the right time then that is not a bad thing.

The dragon is a very good example, as when the destructive rage barbarian is running towards his hoard of fine art, he will probably land. The dragon's flight is a tactical problem, which needs a strategic solution: specifically realising that the dragon has other objectives beyond staying alive and killing you! In this case the barbarian does not even have to hurt the dragon to have made a huge contribution to the fight, which he could not have done if the dragon was going to just land anyway.

[Phaederkiel]

On the other hand, players aren't supposed to ask for spot or listen checks. As far as I am concerned, that's entirely in the DM's camp, except when the players are specifically looking for something; the DM should make the rolls whenever the players might be capable of seeing or hearing something, and then simply inform them what they have spotted. Spotting things is a passive skill; the characters do not walk around with their eyes closed and their ears plugged until they declare they want to make a spot check.


There is such a thing as making active spot checks, and the party scout should make those when the party travels through dangerous terrain.
Just tell the dm that he should roll a spot and listen twice when something should be noticeable, once from your normal reactive check, and once from your active check.
They have a bard, he should be able to do some decent active checks in addition to his passive checks.


I like to play my monsters as smart as they are written. a int of 10 means that they are as smart as a guy with IQ 100, which is average. I know how people with IQs down to 70 tend to play tactical games (and sometimes play surprisingly well), and I know how animals fight (who, inspite of their usual int 2 are quite cunning in real life - try to catch a cat).
So yes, there might be goblins who are stupid. They would have less int. it is as simple as that.

So i would think that your players simply had a bunch of really bad perception rolls (which happens. 5 bad rolls in a row could kill Elminster), and that they did not know that players are allowed to run away.

[Xelbiuj]

It's not the DMs job to ensure everyone has fun, it their job to build/play appropriate encounters and tell an interesting story.

It's the pcs jobs to stay alive and have fun.

If I'm doing poorly in monopoly it's not the bankers job to slide me some extra cash.
From the sound of it, you guys think I should just walk away from the game.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

A few points;


1) The DM's job is to make a game that the players want to play.
2) The DM's second job is to make challenges that are tough enough to make success rewarding, but not so tough as to make failure not-fun.
3) The player's job is to have fun.
4) The player's second job is to actually play the game in order to have fun, rather than having a friendly DM hand over everything.
5) The job of any intelligent combatant is to win, using every advantage they have, can make, borrow, steal or discover.
6) The second job of any intelligent combatant is to survive, often implemented via running away when 30% or more of numbers or resources have been used up and defeat seems imminent. Unless their survival would lead to the non-survival of someone/something else of greater value, of course.

[OldTrees1]

A few points; -snip-

Good post.
Although I think survival is the first job for combatants :smalltongue:

[Silentone98]

A few points;


1) The DM's job is to make a game that the players want to play.
2) The DM's second job is to make challenges that are tough enough to make success rewarding, but not so tough as to make failure not-fun.
3) The player's job is to have fun.
4) The player's second job is to actually play the game in order to have fun, rather than having a friendly DM hand over everything.
5) The job of any intelligent combatant is to win, using every advantage they have, can make, borrow, steal or discover.
6) The second job of any intelligent combatant is to survive, often implemented via running away when 30% or more of numbers or resources have been used up and defeat seems imminent. Unless their survival would lead to the non-survival of someone/something else of greater value, of course.

Thank you for saying it... too many posts here seem borderline on saying that the DM should do just that.

[ace rooster]

Good post.
Although I think survival is the first job for combatants :smalltongue:

If that were the case the PCs would struggle to find a fight, after demonstrating that they are prepared to butcher anything put in front of them. They would only ever fight mindless opponents, traps, and creatures sniping at them from a long way away. The dragon the PCs are supposed to be fighting would not be straffing, he would just not show up! Easiest way to survive a combat is not to be in it, ergo if you are in combat either survival is not your main objective, or you have been trapped. PCs are rarely the ones using traps.

[Zirconia]

I'm doing poorly in monopoly it's not the bankers job to slide me some extra cash.
From the sound of it, you guys think I should just walk away from the game.

You do understand the difference between a game designed to produce a single, ultimate winner, like Monopoly, or Poker, and one which is not, like a Roleplaying game, right?

I know players who love to have tough, tactical fights and win by the skin of their teeth, or lose dramatically. I know other players who hate that, and want a low stress game where you can try cool, non-optimal things and not die because of it. You would be a great DM for the former, a terrible one for the latter, so whether you should walk away depends on the dynamics of the group.

On the goblin tactics question, as others have pointed out plenty of human societies with average intelligence humans never developed tactics much beyond the "run at them screaming" stage. Including ones arguably more developed/civilized than goblins. It would be completely reasonable to have them do little more than that, or to be quite sophisticated if well led, so the overriding factor, in my opinion, should be what the whole group will enjoy. Players learning to fight their PCs better may be part of that, even if they lose a few times up front, but it may not, depending on the group.

[OldTrees1]

If that were the case the PCs would struggle to find a fight, after demonstrating that they are prepared to butcher anything put in front of them. They would only ever fight mindless opponents, traps, and creatures sniping at them from a long way away. The dragon the PCs are supposed to be fighting would not be straffing, he would just not show up! Easiest way to survive a combat is not to be in it, ergo if you are in combat either survival is not your main objective, or you have been trapped. PCs are rarely the ones using traps.

Often enemies either think they can survive so they focus on winning or are protecting something of greater value or are unable to escape(yet).

[Phaederkiel]

On the goblin tactics question, as others have pointed out plenty of human societies with average intelligence humans never developed tactics much beyond the "run at them screaming" stage.

As I did not find that the people pointing this out were numerous, I did not think it needed a rebuttal. But perhaps it does.

a) Which societies? At least, i would like to have concrete examples of societies who "ran at them screaming", if possible i'd like to have sources...

b) And people who conquered such societies and wrote books after the conquest often had no reason to be accurate sources. And still, most give the "barbarians" they wrote about a fair deal of tactical shrewdness, perhaps to make themselves look better, perhaps because the runners-screamers were really difficult opponents.

c) Here are some sources: Read Cesars "de bello gallico", or Tacitus, or sun tzus treatises on war.
Then remember what the cherusks, and other germanic tribes, which are often seen as the quintessential barbarians (even if they were the finest smithes of their time, and rome bought its chainmail from them) did to Varus and his legions:
Hermann, or Arnim tricked Varus into quenching an made-up revolt somewhere in the backwoods of Germany, while the season made for some really ugly weather. Varus was even talked into taking his civilians with him, as not to split his romans. The bad roads made Varus formation long and thin, with difficult to defend flanks. Then Arnim said that he was going to scout the areas, and used his scouting time for talking the tribes into consolidated attacks on Varus flanks. And then they came running a-screaming, in hundreds of small guerilla attacks. Its called shock and awe, a tactics which is as of today still considered to be really effective.



d) lastly: have you ever fought someone with a weapon in hand? even in something as non-realistic as a larp, you soon learn strategie, or you lose.
Screaming and running in is just a fast way to lose, if the other guy holds his ground and knows what he is doing. Every "primitive" society has had ample time to notice that, and to make changes to their approach.


Alltogether, I can hear a lot of arrogance towards the people of the past.
There were some pretty big thinkers at all times, and if you look at medieval weaponry, you will quickly find out that it is normally well designed for its task.

These guys knew what they were doing!

[Xelbiuj]

You do understand the difference between a game designed to produce a single, ultimate winner, like Monopoly, or Poker, and one which is not, like a Roleplaying game, right?

I know players who love to have tough, tactical fights and win by the skin of their teeth, or lose dramatically. I know other players who hate that, and want a low stress game where you can try cool, non-optimal things and not die because of it. You would be a great DM for the former, a terrible one for the latter, so whether you should walk away depends on the dynamics of the group.

On the goblin tactics question, as others have pointed out plenty of human societies with average intelligence humans never developed tactics much beyond the "run at them screaming" stage. Including ones arguably more developed/civilized than goblins. It would be completely reasonable to have them do little more than that, or to be quite sophisticated if well led, so the overriding factor, in my opinion, should be what the whole group will enjoy. Players learning to fight their PCs better may be part of that, even if they lose a few times up front, but it may not, depending on the group.

But that's the point! It's a roll playing game, not a hack n slash table top.

Nothing wrong with playing those type games, it works well against hordes of undead, demons, elementals, or anything without the instinct of self preservation but you simple cannot pretend that a community of goblins, most likely hunters, wouldn't have adopted simple hunting tactics to warfare.
Ranged, pit traps, or even what wolves do - gank the weakest person.

What civilizations are you referring to?

[Amphetryon]

Thank you for saying it... too many posts here seem borderline on saying that the DM should do just that.

Indeed, there are some Players who appear to feel that the DM is functionally an employee.

[Coidzor]

Thank you for saying it... too many posts here seem borderline on saying that the DM should do just that.

What, the ones where we counseled the DM to not make sweeping assumptions and instead figure out what's going on rather than setting out to be reactionary to a situation they didn't understand and punish the players like that was their job? :smalltongue:

[Anteros]

A few points;


4) The player's second job is to actually play the game in order to have fun, rather than having a friendly DM hand over everything.



Thank you for saying it... too many posts here seem borderline on saying that the DM should do just that.

To be frank, if that's what the players want then it is your job as a DM to do so. You have every option to not DM if what the players want is not the type of game that would appeal to you...but if you do choose to DM a game, then it's your responsibility to craft a story that appeals to your players as well as yourself.

If you don't want to participate in a type of game where the DM hands everything to the players, then don't. Personally I find that type of game boring as well and prefer a challenge. However, if I am DMing for a group of players who do enjoy for things to be easy and for rewards to be "handed" to them then trying to enforce a more "realistic" or hard setting on them against their will is just going to end up with everyone being upset.

Too many DMs view each game as "their" game, and get upset when people don't play it "correctly". It isn't only your game. It belongs to everyone involved. If putting your own enjoyment over that of everyone else at the table isn't poor DMing then what is?

[icefractal]

It's also generally a bad idea to run a game you're not interested in though. I would say that more accurately, it's not a DM's "job" to run the game in any particular style. If they run it a way nobody wants to play - then they won't have players.

Often, if the way the DM wants to run, and how the players want to play is close enough, it can be worth finding a middle ground. But if the styles are really completely opposed - well, not every group of people is destined to play in the same game.

[Amphetryon]

To be frank, if that's what the players want then it is your job as a DM to do so. You have every option to not DM if what the players want is not the type of game that would appeal to you...but if you do choose to DM a game, then it's your responsibility to craft a story that appeals to your players as well as yourself.

If you don't want to participate in a type of game where the DM hands everything to the players, then don't. Personally I find that type of game boring as well and prefer a challenge. However, if I am DMing for a group of players who do enjoy for things to be easy and for rewards to be "handed" to them then trying to enforce a more "realistic" or hard setting on them against their will is just going to end up with everyone being upset.

Too many DMs view each game as "their" game, and get upset when people don't play it "correctly". It isn't only your game. It belongs to everyone involved. If putting your own enjoyment over that of everyone else at the table isn't poor DMing then what is?

At which point the ability to fairly call the game according to the rules, run all NPCs as fleshed-out people with their own personalities and agendas, handle by-the-book reasonable distribution of wealth throughout the world and toward the PCs, adjudicate all rules disputes, and keep the game otherwise running smoothly is apparently not enough to avoid being a 'poor DM.' Perhaps I sound like I'm whining here, but that sounds to me like an awful lot to expect from someone for a hobby they theoretically do in their free time, partially for their own enjoyment.

[Anteros]

At which point the ability to fairly call the game according to the rules, run all NPCs as fleshed-out people with their own personalities and agendas, handle by-the-book reasonable distribution of wealth throughout the world and toward the PCs, adjudicate all rules disputes, and keep the game otherwise running smoothly is apparently not enough to avoid being a 'poor DM.' Perhaps I sound like I'm whining here, but that sounds to me like an awful lot to expect from someone for a hobby they theoretically do in their free time, partially for their own enjoyment.

You can make the greatest story ever ever told...but if no one enjoys it what's the point? Players aren't going to care how detailed or fleshed out your story/world is if it comes at the expense of their enjoyment.

[TuggyNE]

At which point the ability to fairly call the game according to the rules, run all NPCs as fleshed-out people with their own personalities and agendas, handle by-the-book reasonable distribution of wealth throughout the world and toward the PCs, adjudicate all rules disputes, and keep the game otherwise running smoothly is apparently not enough to avoid being a 'poor DM.' Perhaps I sound like I'm whining here, but that sounds to me like an awful lot to expect from someone for a hobby they theoretically do in their free time, partially for their own enjoyment.

Times are tough dot jpg. Life's not fair, and while you could make a case that the design of a DM-based game is inherently flawed, it's not something to blame the individual players for — it's just how it goes. Either you can do it, or you can't, but if you can't it's no one's fault.

[Amphetryon]

Times are tough dot jpg. Life's not fair, and while you could make a case that the design of a DM-based game is inherently flawed, it's not something to blame the individual players for — it's just how it goes. Either you can do it, or you can't, but if you can't it's no one's fault.

So, you're in the camp that an effort that has room for improvement is "cannot do it," then? That says that such an effort is, in fact, a failure?

[TuggyNE]

So, you're in the camp that an effort that has room for improvement is "cannot do it," then? That says that such an effort is, in fact, a failure?

Either the game is enjoyable or it isn't. If it's enjoyable, great, keep it that way. If it's not, then see if you can make it so; if you can't, well, them's the breaks.

There is usually room for improvement. There are always limits to any individual's abilities. These are not contradictory.

[Coidzor]

At which point the ability to fairly call the game according to the rules, run all NPCs as fleshed-out people with their own personalities and agendas, handle by-the-book reasonable distribution of wealth throughout the world and toward the PCs, adjudicate all rules disputes, and keep the game otherwise running smoothly is apparently not enough to avoid being a 'poor DM.' Perhaps I sound like I'm whining here, but that sounds to me like an awful lot to expect from someone for a hobby they theoretically do in their free time, partially for their own enjoyment.

Because if you do all that with a bad attitude it'll just undermine everything.

[Amphetryon]

Either the game is enjoyable or it isn't. If it's enjoyable, great, keep it that way. If it's not, then see if you can make it so; if you can't, well, them's the breaks.

There is usually room for improvement. There are always limits to any individual's abilities. These are not contradictory.

Unless you're taking a different tack than was already presented in this thread, if the Players are complaining, you are, ipso facto, a bad DM. You either can do it, or you can't. If that seems harsh, times are tough.

[TuggyNE]

Unless you're taking a different tack than was already presented in this thread, if the Players are complaining, you are, ipso facto, a bad DM. You either can do it, or you can't. If that seems harsh, times are tough.

I think there are two misconceptions causing problems here; the first is that DM skill is some sort of value judgement, a reflection on how good you are as a person. It's not, it's more like being able to play an instrument: if you can play the violin, great! If not, well, not everyone can.

The second is that the opinions of one group on how well a given DM functions with them are somehow valid for all groups in general; this is not necessarily the case, and a fair amount of DMing is dependent on local group style. Some (most) DMs are good for some groups and not others; some few may be able to handle nearly any style of group. Thus, the complaints of one group may indeed indicate unsuitability for DMing that group without reflecting on general DMing capacity in any certain way.

[Amphetryon]

Because if you do all that with a bad attitude it'll just undermine everything.

Why is "the DM, just possibly, deserves a say in what's fun, also" a bad attitude, exactly?

[Yogibear41]

Its not Amphetryon. The DM should have just as much fun as the players do.

Back to the point at hand, goblins are weak and puny, but they know they are weak and puny. They should never use strait up tactics they should fight dirty and use whatever tricks they have to stay alive, traps, alchemists fire, hit and run, ambushes, guerrilla warfare, the works. Sure the average goblin might only have average int, but the chief, or the spellcasting shaman is likely a cut above and a good leader is sometimes all it takes to have excellent battle strategies.

All that being said, don't pull punches on things like this, if you hand your players everything without them having to work for it then they will have no reason to improve at playing the game, whether that means playing smarter or building a better character, better they die now at level 1 and learn the lessons than get to a higher level and be completely clueless.

I have played in a game before where I was fairly experienced and had a decently optimized character, and a friend who has been playing for many years with lots of experience who just had a normally built character if you will, and we were basically saddled with a group of people who just expected to run in and kill everything in their path without any kind of strategy at all, me and the other guy would plan and set up ambushes, then they would just run in and almost always come close to dying until we saved them.

It was painful for the two of us players, and even the DM was getting frustrated, but in away he continued to coddle them so the situation never improved, until finally he just had to cancel the game because he was "busy" to often.


Now I'm not telling you to go extreme hard core must kill everything mode, but it should be more difficult then I run in I hit his AC of 14 do 5 points of damage and he dies kind of fight is all I am saying.

This reminds me the story of Tucker's Kobolds, Google the story if you have never read it.

[TuggyNE]

Why is "the DM, just possibly, deserves a say in what's fun, also" a bad attitude, exactly?

It isn't, in isolation, but that wasn't what either Coidzor or myself were talking about. If, for some reason, a group exists that cannot enjoy a game in which the DM has a say in what is fun, then it is highly likely that few or no DMs would be suitable for them, which is another way of saying that that's kind of a terrible group.

On the other hand, if the DM's ideas of fun are not compatible with the group's, well, it should be pretty obvious that that doesn't work, and that no one is at fault as such.

On the third hand, it is certainly possible to DM with a bad attitude such that e.g. "only the DM deserves a say in what's fun", which is probably what Coidzor was thinking of. And that is not likely to produce good results.

[Anteros]

Why is "the DM, just possibly, deserves a say in what's fun, also" a bad attitude, exactly?

It's not inherently. But if your fun comes at the expense of everyone else's then it is. Like I said earlier, if you don't want to run a fluff game for players that demand to be coddled then simply don't do so. That's your choice.

It doesn't even make you a bad DM...it simply makes you a bad match at DM for those particular players. There are thousands of other players in the world who appreciate a more serious type of game and wouldn't see it as a flaw.

Look at it from the other perspective. As a player who enjoys serious campaigns and challenges, would you consider someone who only gave you fluff challenges and handed you everything for free a good DM even after you expressed that you wanted a challenge? It's like any other social interaction. You have to have some middle ground to meet between. Just like how sometimes you'll run into a player who just doesn't fit in with your group's style...sometimes the same thing is true of the DM. It's not necessarily an indictment of the person or their abilities at all though.

[Coidzor]

On the third hand, it is certainly possible to DM with a bad attitude such that e.g. "only the DM deserves a say in what's fun", which is probably what Coidzor was thinking of. And that is not likely to produce good results.

Well, I was more thinking that the bad attitude would be an unwillingness to even try to talk with the players and come up with a workable compromise for everyone's mutual enjoyment of the game.

[CrazyYanmega]

I expect PC's not to face encounters where they are unable to effectively contribute. Against a group with no ranged weapons, it's quite rude to have the PC's face a dragon that solely strafes the party with breath weapon and spells even though that's the best way for the dragon to win.
Really? Well, life isn't always fair. You think a random hiker in the woods, upon encountering a mountain lion, can look up at the sky and say "Hey, this isn't an encounter appropriate to my level!" and the mountain lion becomes a bobcat?

No, the hiker does whatever he CAN do to survive, be it draw his knife, try to intimidate it, or climb a tree.

Usually, the hiker dies.

But when he DOES win? Best feeling in the world.

[Flickerdart]

Really? Well, life isn't always fair. You think a random hiker in the woods, upon encountering a mountain lion, can look up at the sky and say "Hey, this isn't an encounter appropriate to my level!" and the mountain lion becomes a bobcat?

No, the hiker does whatever he CAN do to survive, be it draw his knife, try to intimidate it, or climb a tree.

Usually, the hiker dies.

But when he DOES win? Best feeling in the world.
The evil overlord hears that his troops that were trying to burn down a rebel village were defeated by a ragtag bunch of misfits. He teleports to the village and reduces the 1st level characters to ash, then teleports home. The players high-five each other and have a great time from all of that realism they just experienced.

[CrazyYanmega]

The evil overlord hears that his troops that were trying to burn down a rebel village were defeated by a ragtag bunch of misfits. He teleports to the village and reduces the 1st level characters to ash, then teleports home. The players high-five each other and have a great time from all of that realism they just experienced.
Realistically, the evil overlord would be maintaining watch over dozens, if not hundreds, of different squads. He wouldn't be dealing with things personally. By the time he got wind of this, the PCs would be long gone. At worst he'd send one of his generals to beat the snot out of the PCs, but keep them alive for the entertainment they provide.

Also realistically, there are likely powerful extraplanar forces of Good who would like to intervene and stop the overlord, but can't due to restrictions on direct assults. Those PCs who bravely sacrificed their lives are now bought back from the brink by said forces, and are assigned to become the 'weapons' of these forces to deal with this threat on the material plane.

Kudos on the possible Sig material though.

[Flickerdart]

Realistically, the evil overlord would be maintaining watch over dozens, if not hundreds, of different squads. He wouldn't be dealing with things personally. By the time he got wind of this, the PCs would be long gone. At worst he'd send one of his generals to beat the snot out of the PCs, but keep them alive for the entertainment they provide.

Also realistically, there are likely powerful extraplanar forces of Good who would like to intervene and stop the overlord, but can't due to restrictions on direct assults. Those PCs who bravely sacrificed their lives are now bought back from the brink by said forces, and are assigned to become the 'weapons' of these forces to deal with this threat on the material plane.

Yes, because fiction is totally devoid of any situations in which the BBEG went to do his dirty work personally. It's not like this forum has a webcomic attached to it where a certain epic lich frequently alludes to his past spent doing that very thing, and then also does that thing on-screen, to the point where the protagonists are only in this situation at all precisely because that lich was the one who wiped the floor with his father.

That would just not be realistic at all.

[CrazyYanmega]

Yes, because fiction is totally devoid of any situations in which the BBEG went to do his dirty work personally. It's not like this forum has a webcomic attached to it where a certain epic lich frequently alludes to his past spent doing that very thing, and then also does that thing on-screen, to the point where the protagonists are only in this situation at all precisely because that lich was the one who wiped the floor with his father.

That would just not be realistic at all.

Also noticed how through quick thinking, thought out strategy, and some luck, they've managed to pull through on multiple occasions?

In fact, Roy's death is a perfect example of how a player doing something stupid gets punished by a smart villain.

[Flickerdart]

Also noticed how through quick thinking, thought out strategy, and some luck, they've managed to pull through on multiple occasions?

In fact, Roy's death is a perfect example of how a player doing something stupid gets punished by a smart villain.
http://www.johnlocke.org/site-docs/lockerroom/movinggoalpost.gif

I'm not talking about Roy. I'm not talking about the Order. I'm talking about the monsters and villages Xykon plows through effortlessly, the same way he murdered Roy's grandfather. It is not fun to be those guys because they are completely outclassed by an encounter that is narratively "realistic" (which has now apparently turned from something that you said wasn't at all realistic to a "perfect example" ... somehow).

[CrazyYanmega]

http://www.johnlocke.org/site-docs/lockerroom/movinggoalpost.gif

I'm not talking about Roy. I'm not talking about the Order. I'm talking about the monsters and villages Xykon plows through effortlessly, the same way he murdered Roy's grandfather. It is not fun to be those guys because they are completely outclassed by an encounter that is narratively "realistic" (which has now apparently turned from something that you said wasn't at all realistic to a "perfect example" ... somehow).

I'm going to give you two useful pieces of information.

One: Roy's grandfather has never even met Xykon. You're thinking Dorukan, Roy's Father's Master.

Two: We AREN'T talking about the monsters and villages that Xykon plowed through. Those are the NPCs. We need to look at the PCs.

[skyth]

Two: We AREN'T talking about the monsters and villages that Xykon plowed through. Those are the NPCs. We need to look at the PCs.

Okay, make up your mind. Do you want 'realism' or special treatment for the PC's?

If you're talking about realism, whatever happens to an NPC could happen to a PC.

[CrazyYanmega]

Story-driven help as the plot demands it. Such as Scoundrel, a PC crutch if I ever saw one. But not anything ridiculous or random, unless it can be expanded on.

[TuggyNE]

Story-driven help as the plot demands it. Such as Scoundrel, a PC crutch if I ever saw one. But not anything ridiculous or random, unless it can be expanded on.

I'm not sure I can clearly distinguish "story-driven"/"plot" from "ridiculous"/"random" in all or even most cases. Maybe you could elaborate on that?