PDA

View Full Version : Gamer Drama Should players be expected to be stupid



Ghost49X
2014-03-06, 11:33 AM
Yesterday my once a week game ended with the players deciding to get another DM cause I was making things "too hard" on them. Though I don't built encounters that are necessary one-sided they did have a lot of trouble defeating groups of monsters. Not that the monsters were OP they just used defensive tactics like using cover and retreating to return with reinforcements several hours later. One of my players told me that I should expect players in general to be stupid and I should cater to that. I mean personally if the enemy is in cover, there is cover available for the players and he remains immobile out of cover while auto-attacking with his bow and he feels that I'm stacking odds against him. Am I a bad DM for not making cut and dry simple fights? This is also the player who had to be reminded constantly every round that shooting a bow while engaged in melee is liable to get you an AOO to the face.

I have also be told that I don't hand out enough xp, when I told them to expect most of the xp to come from quest rewards when they haven't completed any quests/side quests.

Tanuki Tales
2014-03-06, 11:43 AM
How new are your players to the game?

Edit:

And did you make all of these game policies (playing monsters intelligently, XP coming from quest rewards, etc.) known when you took up the DM/GM hat for this group?

Yora
2014-03-06, 11:54 AM
Seen from a different perspective, you should not expect your players being clever. If you already know a thing, it's much more obvious to see the connections and the best solution, than if you don't have the full picture.
Players may get lucky and have a moment of genius and see through a secret or mystery, but you can never rely on them making exactly that conclusion. They can only act on the information they have and which they know to be relevant. You can never be sure that mentioning "rotting ropes of a bridge" will make the players conclude that they should try to cut the ropes or not attempt to cross the bridge. It's not stupid to ignore that tiny detail as insignificant, and you can't rely on players making any connection, even if it seems completely obvious to you.

Tanuki Tales
2014-03-06, 11:55 AM
Seen from a different perspective, you should not expect your players being clever. If you already know a thing, it's much more obvious to see the connections and the best solution, than if you don't have the full picture.
Players may get lucky and have a moment of genius and see through a secret or mystery, but you can never rely on them making exactly that conclusion. They can only act on the information they have and which they know to be relevant. You can never be sure that mentioning "rotting ropes of a bridge" will make the players conclude that they should try to cut the ropes or not attempt to cross the bridge. It's not stupid to ignore that tiny detail as insignificant, and you can't rely on players making any connection, even if it seems completely obvious to you.

While valid advice, the subject matter is cover being offered to both sides of a conflict, but only the antagonists make use of it, while the PCs stand out in the wide open, plinking away or getting into melee with a ranged weapon.

Jenrock
2014-03-06, 11:57 AM
If your players expect you to expect them to be stupid, then you probably should. That being said, D&D is a cooperative game; compromise and discussion are an important part of the process. Talk to your players and see what kind of game they want. If they want to stand in the middle of a cover-laden area with using any of it, that's their prerogative, but you have every right to tell them that you expect more of them. Hopefully, this will lead to a compromise: maybe you sometimes ignore a possible tactical advantage and they start using rudimentary tactics and remembering the rules.

Talk to your players. It can't hurt.

Ghost49X
2014-03-06, 12:19 PM
Thanks for the advice. The game has been terminated with another GM taking the hat of GM for the next weekend. We purposely chose 3.5 because everyone was familiar with it and the group spoke against playing with the "evil 4e". He has led me to believe he has played enough to know his way around the basic rules. But perhaps his other group didn't use some of the rules aka AOOs in response to ranged attacks.

Juzer
2014-03-06, 12:20 PM
I agree: talk to the players, but expect them to remain stupid.
That's just what happens every time: feel lucky if they they at least begin to flank enemies and concentrate fire.

Tengu_temp
2014-03-06, 12:21 PM
There are two things to consider here:

1. A lot of the time, what's obvious to the DM is not obvious to the players. Often, but not always, it's the DM's fault for not communicating clearly.
2. Different people have different playstyles. If your group has a different playstyle than you and isn't interested in tactical challenges, then instead of punishing them for it you should seek compromise and look for a solution that will leave both sides happy.

jedipotter
2014-03-06, 12:35 PM
One of my players told me that I should expect players in general to be stupid and I should cater to that.

Yes. At least this is a common mindset. Some players just want things to be easy. So that every fight is a bit like the start of a video game where the two sides line up on flat ground five feet away from each other and fight. Too often players are thinking more ''god-like super hero'' then ''army trooper'' or even ''adventurer''. After all Superman would never duck for cover ever, so why would Solkgar the Hexblade, right?

I run into this often. The group enters the ruins of a dinning room full of wooden tables, chairs, and such. And from up on the second level, kobolds start shooting stuff at them. Now common sense, and every Tv show/movie will tell you ''turn the table over and use them for cover''. But no, the groups just stands there and tries to shoot stuff back.....or worse, try to climb the wall to get up to where the kobolds are. The whole group did not make it.....

It is just differences in mindsets and they way the game is played.

Ghost49X
2014-03-06, 12:46 PM
Yes. At least this is a common mindset. Some players just want things to be easy. So that every fight is a bit like the start of a video game where the two sides line up on flat ground five feet away from each other and fight. Too often players are thinking more ''god-like super hero'' then ''army trooper'' or even ''adventurer''. After all Superman would never duck for cover ever, so why would Solkgar the Hexblade, right?

Sadly this general mentality reminds me of world of warcraft, where nowadays it's a challenge-less grind fest with more and more people complaining that it's too hard and too complicated of a game. Should I ever GM these people again it'll probably be a boring game fighting quadriplegic blind goblins at 1 level worth of xp each.

huttj509
2014-03-06, 12:53 PM
There are different games that can all be DnD.

For example:

Beer and Pretzels slugfest.

Tactical miniatures strategy session.

Magical tea party.



There's more, of course. The point is that all of those are valid, and for all of those, if you're expecting one, and the players (or some of the players) are expecting another, there will be heavy friction.

I've seen a sig quote along the lines of "getting people together to play DnD is like getting people together to play "cards." You need to make sure you're all playing the same game."

Red Fel
2014-03-06, 01:01 PM
I've seen a sig quote along the lines of "getting people together to play DnD is like getting people together to play "cards." You need to make sure you're all playing the same game."

Pretty much this. What you're describing is not "players being stupid," it's players playing a different game than the one you're running.

Picture kids playing in the playground, pointing their fingers at each other and going "pow pow, I shot you, pow pow, you're dead." In their minds, those are the rules. If you point your finger at someone and say "pow pow," you shot him and he's dead, done. Many of these kids won't move around, or run, or hide, they'll just stand and announce when people die.

But then some of the kids add to the rules. They run. They duck. They hide. "Nuh-uh, you didn't shoot me, I ducked." It makes sense, and it's a good strategy. But the first kid - the "pow pow" kid - is dismayed. The rules have changed! You're not supposed to duck, you're supposed to be dead!

In this case, the problem isn't that your players were "stupid." It's that they were playing a game where one side stands, and the other side stands, and both sides just stay put and announce "pow pow" until one side is dead. You were playing a reasonable game, that involved maneuvering and cover - but it wasn't the same game. What you need to do is determine whether the game you're playing - with tactical movement and cover - is the same as the game your players are playing. Because if it's not, something's gotta change.

As an aside, I always expect my players to be stupid. And insane. That's why every puzzle or scenario I design has at least three solutions written into it, plus allowances made for creative solutions by the players. But that's not what we're dealing with here.

Rhynn
2014-03-06, 01:03 PM
Don't expect anything: figure out what your players are like.

If your players aren't any good at thinking about combat tactics or rising up to tough combat challenges, or just playing around them (you do allow that and use a system that doesn't mechanically reward defeating/killing/capturing enemies, or at least makes those rewards trivial next to non-combat rewards, right?), then tough combat challenges are no good.

(And, outside of combat, you can never assume that players will figure something out, so figuring something out should never be a requisite for progressing with the game.)

As to the quest thing: that sounds like a whole separate dysfunction. Why hadn't they completed any quests?

Telonius
2014-03-06, 01:29 PM
There's also a difference between players not being good at tactics generally, and making a particular tactical error.

For example, my players were invading a fortress. The alarm had been raised, but the players were inside the walls. The party Warblade went up to a door, and heard orders being barked out (in Giant, which was a language he didn't know) and what sounded like about 10 enemies rushing quickly, then stopping. Squads of defenders had been mobilizing, and the rest of the party was a few steps behind him, so he decided to break down the door. As soon as he did, all 10 defenders took their readied actions to pincushion him with arrows. It took out something like 3/4 of his hitpoints in a single volley.

Now, this was a really unfortunate turn of events. There were clues to what was going on (enemies all of a sudden not moving, orders being given) that would have suggested they had something planned. The player - who was generally a smart guy, and average as far as rule mastery goes - didn't pick up on it before he decided to act.

The important thing was that after the fact, he understood why it happened the way it did. As soon as the door was gone and he saw what was in front of his character, he realized what had been going on. It was a trap, but an easily-understandable one after it had been sprung. The look on the faces of the party told me they all completely got it, just after it went down; if they hadn't been clear, I'd have explained it. Fortunately for the player, being the Meatshield he had plenty of hitpoints, and the Cleric was a short distance away. He survived the encounter, and was a bit more cautious afterwards.

Now, I don't throw too many of that kind of "trap" encounter against PCs - the kind where, if you don't figure it out after a round of two, it's a TPK. Enemies aren't always going to perfectly plan out just how to best use terrain against their foes. They're more likely to do so if they're both intelligent and professional fighters, or universally-acknowledged vicious trapsmiths like Kobolds.

Ansem
2014-03-06, 01:49 PM
How new are your players to the game?

Edit:

And did you make all of these game policies (playing monsters intelligently, XP coming from quest rewards, etc.) known when you took up the DM/GM hat for this group?

I can't imagine someone complaining about that, weaker monsters okay, but having them be played less intelligent?

Hell, if you don't fight Dwarves or Kobolds (who would both fight an extreme battle of attrition to wear you down), even animals have something called 'animal instict', like a lion waiting for a chance to strike, lurking from the bushes or another predator taunting you just out of reach and all trying to pick the party off one by one.
Just because your players are stupid doesn't mean the entire animal kingdom has to be.

Dawgmoah
2014-03-06, 01:52 PM
Everything your players know about the events occuring in your game is through your dialogue and/or handouts. They may have different expectations than you have as to what is going on in the game and even what they want to do. An example: A group of players told me they were "into exploring new lands and finding lost civilizations." Once I built it all and we began the game they really weren't all that much into it. They lived for the small group conflict and basically devolved into a group of bandits terrorizing the frontier where three kingdoms met. If you would have asked them they would have compared themselves to "Robin Hood."

You and your players need to be in the same game. Should players be considered stupid? Well, the people sitting around your gaming table may be roleplaying a group of hardy individuals that can survive in the hostile wilderness but may have never been outside their town at night. You have to make some allowances for that. Drop them hints, "You know that orc that got away just might be running off to tell the rest of his tribe you all are here and killed several of his buddies." It may not be a matter of stupidity but instead ignorance. They may not know what you are looking for as an answer to your questions.

"What do you do now?" Some players hate that question as it is too open-ended. They should ask for clarification but oftimes won't. Another player will take that question and roll with it.

There is information the player knows, and then there is information the player character probably should know. While you shouldn't make decisions for them you can give them hints about a situation.

Felhammer
2014-03-06, 02:04 PM
If you want your players to think tactically, you need to teach them how to play that way. Go through a basic combat and give them tactical hints. Show them how to use cover to their best advantage, illustrate how to cut off lanes of retreat and help them think in ways that are not dictated by the rules (like setting wooden crates on fire or setting up ambushes, etc.). Write down key terrain features and attach them to the outside of your DM screen to help serve as a reminder for PCs.

Slipperychicken
2014-03-06, 02:20 PM
As a player, it isn't always clear what the environment looks like and how it can be used. For example, you might try to describe a 10' deep pond but accidentally make your players think it's a puddle that can be walked through. It's important to clarify these things a lot, because it can be hard to understand everything you're saying. On top of that, it can be hard to make them reach the same conclusions as you do (my group once lost a PC to an ooze because we were supposed to throw a book at it).

For the autoattacker, you could try giving him advice such as "Your characters notice that this tree and those hedges can be used as cover". It helps to give them that kind of stuff, which might be obvious to characters who are standing right in the action with full sensory input, but isn't so clear to their players, who are in a different universe working off a grid outline and two hastily-spoken sentences of description.

veti
2014-03-06, 04:10 PM
As a player, it isn't always clear what the environment looks like and how it can be used. For example, you might try to describe a 10' deep pond but accidentally make your players think it's a puddle that can be walked through. It's important to clarify these things a lot, because it can be hard to understand everything you're saying. On top of that, it can be hard to make them reach the same conclusions as you do (my group once lost a PC to an ooze because we were supposed to throw a book at it).

For the autoattacker, you could try giving him advice such as "Your characters notice that this tree and those hedges can be used as cover". It helps to give them that kind of stuff, which might be obvious to characters who are standing right in the action with full sensory input, but isn't so clear to their players, who are in a different universe working off a grid outline and two hastily-spoken sentences of description.

Second this. I've had DMs who actually look at me exasperatedly, as if I'm wasting everyone's time, when I ask on my turn about things like 'cover' or 'distance to close'. Some DMs just don't factor 'tactics' at all, and some players likewise.

A few heavy hints, like that suggested above, might help to get the penny to drop.

NichG
2014-03-06, 05:09 PM
As a GM, its in your interest to be able to adapt and adjust to whatever is thrown your way, including players being very smart about things or very dumb about things. Whether or not 'players should be expected' is just something to make you feel better about a situation in which there is a problem, so it behooves you to focus on the problem and not the validation of a bunch of forum goers.

The problem is 'your players are not thinking tactically, but you want to run a tactically rich game'. There's a few ways to solve this. You could change what you want, but lets discard that for the moment.

- You could run a game designed to slowly ramp up tactical thinking and teach it to the players. Rather than having enemies go full-out with intelligent tactics, you pick one particular tactic for each encounter and have the enemies explore that tactic fully, showing the PCs why it makes the fight harder for them. Similarly, you can create situations in which the use of a particular tactic is marked out very clearly, or where an NPC e.g. calls for them 'get into cover!' or whatever.

- You could adjust CR in the party's favor, so they're fighting creatures at CR-2 that are being played intelligently, rather than creatures at their CR playing stupidly. This lets you play a tactically rich game and they can do whatever and still succeed. May not be satisfying though.

- You could get new players and filter for some degree of tactical competency.

Delwugor
2014-03-06, 05:36 PM
I have a general guideline that if one player complains then he is likely the one with the problem and needs to work it out. If two or more complain then GM has the problem and needs to work it out. If all the players complain then the GM needs to either change or hand over the reigns.

jedipotter
2014-03-06, 08:15 PM
You and your players need to be in the same game. Should players be considered stupid? Well, the people sitting around your gaming table may be roleplaying a group of hardy individuals that can survive in the hostile wilderness but may have never been outside their town at night. You have to make some allowances for that. .

This is very true. Most people don't quite have common sense. Or even Hollywood sense. You'd think that after watching some Hollywood stuff that must people would at least know basic Hollywood tactics http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodTactics

But few players know even Hollywood tactics.

Ghost49X
2014-03-06, 08:46 PM
Considering I was playing with a bunch of army guys I expected some level of tactical knowledge.

Berenger
2014-03-06, 09:05 PM
If they are not interested in improving: sucks to be you. :smallwink:

If they are interested in improving: Grab some rules for modern equipment. Roll up a SWAT team. Run them through a training mission against some fake terrorists. Use cover, concealment, AoE damage, camouflage, sneak attacks, traps, hit-and-run, abushes, environment hazards, guards that call for reinforcements when attacked etc.

Let them act naturally, let them "die" one by one (give them a few "lifes" each if necessary to get them to the end). Then give them a debriefing along with some suggestions what could have been better responses to each situation, in-game via their instructor.

Fast forward to end of training, run the mission they were training for, this time for real and with live ammunition. See if they do better this time.

veti
2014-03-06, 09:51 PM
Considering I was playing with a bunch of army guys I expected some level of tactical knowledge.

OK, obviously I don't know about your situation or background, but in that case - it's worth considering the possibility that they didn't do what you expect precisely because they know way more about tactics than you do.

Maybe 'taking cover' in that particular situation in real life would be completely ineffective, and they're actively trained not to do it. It works differently in a game because completely different rules, mechanics, tech level etc., but that's not what they're trained for.

Jay R
2014-03-06, 11:48 PM
Players should be expected to continue to be what they have been up to now.

Some groups are stupid. Some groups aren't stupid, but don't think the same way the DM does, and therefore don't pick up hints. Some groups are clever. Some groups are brilliant.

What has this group been like? They will continue to be like that.

Rhynn
2014-03-07, 12:52 AM
Considering I was playing with a bunch of army guys I expected some level of tactical knowledge.

Maybe they don't feel like thinking tactically in their free time?

I know a huge part of the (online-active) Twilight 2013 community was servicepeople (active and inactive), but that doesn't extrapolate in the opposite direction...

Seriously, if you start trying to dictate how your players should be playing / enjoying the game... well, uh, you get kicked out of being GM, usually, and with good reason.

There's nothing wrong with running a game that requires tactical thinking etc. in itself - I run hard games that force my players to use their brains or get their PCs killed - but you have to reach a compromise with your players, and sometimes that means you have to change what you're doing. (Of course, if you only want to run a tactically chalenging game... well, another reason why switching GMs is a good idea.)


What has this group been like? They will continue to be like that.

Yes, yes, yes.

Although there is a chance they will change, it would happen slowly if at all, so you cannot rely on it happening, and you especially cannot make it happen. You can, at best, create circumstances in which it is more likely to happen, but it probably still won't, so you can't assume it will.

TuggyNE
2014-03-07, 01:26 AM
Although there is a chance they will change, it would happen slowly if at all, so you cannot rely on it happening, and you especially cannot make it happen. You can, at best, create circumstances in which it is more likely to happen, but it probably still won't, so you can't assume it will.

You know, the similarity of this to some of the stuff in the alignment thread over in d20 is making me think someone should write up a semi-serious "RPG Group Alignment System" with things like Tactical Pretzel and Freeform Theatre. :smallwink:

Ghost49X
2014-03-07, 08:24 AM
Not that my game focused on combat, however when there is combat I like playing enemies and npcs according to their supposed intelligence I mean kobolds, dwarves, elves and such should behave differently than uncontrolled zombies as far as tactical acumen.

I also don't mind if the PCs make less than sound judgements as they are much more powerful than a few flimsy kobolds and should still be able to take them on. Where my annoyance stands at is when PC ignore possible tactical advantage for the whole fight (after I mentioned it at least 3 times and even provided an example with the npc who was following the party) then complained that the fight was unfairly hard cause they couldn't just auto attack the random targets until they win (yes some of them didn't care what they were shooting ether)
"I shoot it!" <- PC
"uh, shoot which one?" <- GM
"I don't care I just shoot one" <- PC

ElenionAncalima
2014-03-07, 09:13 AM
As a player, it isn't always clear what the environment looks like and how it can be used. For example, you might try to describe a 10' deep pond but accidentally make your players think it's a puddle that can be walked through. It's important to clarify these things a lot, because it can be hard to understand everything you're saying.

This could definitley be playing into the problem. Having interesting terrain can be a fun challenge for players. However, you have to be very specific when describing the terrain...or draw it out really well.

I had a GM basically party wipe us with a large group of basic gunners while using some kind of fog cover. Only myself and another player survived...and only because we were ranged fighters and were able to run away after the others died. The GM gave the others a lot of crap for dying, since they were basically fighting mooks and they didn't even reach them. However, as he started to lecture them about all the ways it could have been prevented, it just because increasingly clear that he was the only one who really understood what the battlefield looked like and how the fog covering worked.

I'll admit that the melee fighters were kind of dumb for charging a group of gunners, knowing it would take several rounds to get to them. Myself and the other surviving player were far more careful about using cover and not approaching. However, regardless of who was at fault, I assure you that nobody enjoyed that session...and at the end of the day, that was the real problem.

Talos
2014-03-07, 09:26 AM
my humble .02, first as a GM know how your monsters will fight. are the intellegent fighters incorperating ambush tactics or kiting tactics? Or are they dumb brutes who will fight head to head til the last skull is crushed. I think most monster discriptions should at least give you the basics of these.

Now as far as your PC's go, give them at least 3 clues to what ever it is you want them to have a chance to know. try not give them the same clue three times. Example from above, the party notices that the ropes are rotten on the rope bridge, clue 1 that the shouldn't cross it. Musty earthy smell of mold and moisture, clue 2. finally some of the wooden planks have fell away do to the rot. you have given them Sight, smell and sight again. let them pick up on the clue of not wanting to go across the bridge. They feel smart you are relieved they caught on. if they try to cross the bridge well as the old saying goes you can only lead a horse to water you can't make him drink.

If your, kobolds for example are using cover ad getting good AC for that. when you discribe the action to them make sure you emphasize that they are indeed in cover and are harder to hit. don't tell them they are being stupid for not being in cover then dying. let it be their idea.

I read this on DM advice page some where i am paraphrasing here but basically it said. Be prepared for a physical solution, a diplimatic solution, then a mushroom solution. meaning what ever crazy way they PC's might handle a given situation. You know your players give them the xp according to how they handle it any given situation.

Rhynn
2014-03-07, 09:59 AM
Not that my game focused on combat, however when there is combat I like playing enemies and npcs according to their supposed intelligence I mean kobolds, dwarves, elves and such should behave differently than uncontrolled zombies as far as tactical acumen.

But why? Your (ex-)players don't enjoy it, obviously. If you're the only one getting a kick out of it, it's obviously not a good idea, and a compromise or change has (had) to be made.


"I shoot it!" <- PC
"uh, shoot which one?" <- GM
"I don't care I just shoot one" <- PC

I don't see anything wrong with this, but I guess you use combat maps or something?


However, regardless of who was at fault, I assure you that nobody enjoyed that session...and at the end of the day, that was the real problem.

Again, this is what really matters.

Who cares if the dwarves/kobolds/orcs "should" act smarter? It's a game and supposed to be fun! If the players get no enjoyment out of fighting smart enemies, you shouldn't have them fight smart enemies.

Ghost49X
2014-03-07, 10:11 AM
Again, this is what really matters.

Who cares if the dwarves/kobolds/orcs "should" act smarter? It's a game and supposed to be fun! If the players get no enjoyment out of fighting smart enemies, you shouldn't have them fight smart enemies.

If combat happens with out any form of meaningful strategy or tactics it basically boils down to rolling dice until one side wins then rinse and repeat or complain. Also out of 4 players we had: Warmage, Duskblade, Archery fighter and a warlock, all seemed geared towards fighting and very little else. The fighter in particular was adamant he didn't want his character to do anything but shoot arrows (aka he didn't want any stealth or skills not directly related to using his bow, which he also called diplomacy)

Lord of Shadows
2014-03-07, 10:37 AM
If combat happens with out any form of meaningful strategy or tactics it basically boils down to rolling dice until one side wins then rinse and repeat or complain. Also out of 4 players we had: Warmage, Duskblade, Archery fighter and a warlock, all seemed geared towards fighting and very little else. The fighter in particular was adamant he didn't want his character to do anything but shoot arrows (aka he didn't want any stealth or skills not directly related to using his bow, which he also called diplomacy)

They probably aren't stupid, it's more a case of low expectations. They expect the monsters and traps to be pushovers because that's how it is for "heroes."

If it's any consolation, my group here would become quickly bored with a gaming style like that. I don't think it matters, but we have all been gaming for 10+ years (a couple of us 20+) and we expect a little more of a challenge. I am curious how they got introduced to fantasy RPG gaming.. The previous references to console gaming seem to fit this group, and it's sad, really. But, you and they are at different points in your gaming maturity, and perhaps style as well. As far I am concerned, any n00b who doesn't use cover in a fight gets what they deserve. Survival of the fittest and that sort of thing. You would think they would realize what the enemy is doing and learn and adapt, but for some reason, they don't. You could take the time to lead them by the nose through a little lesson on "stra-da-gee" and hope that helps. Otherwise...

You are welcome to DM here anytime. We enjoy a good challenge.

Trebloc
2014-03-07, 11:33 AM
Who cares if the dwarves/kobolds/orcs "should" act smarter? It's a game and supposed to be fun! If the players get no enjoyment out of fighting smart enemies, you shouldn't have them fight smart enemies.

You should say if the players and DM get no enjoyment out of it. There are two sides to the screen, and there is zero chance I'm DMing if I'm not having fun.

It sounds like the PCs just want room after empty room filled with monsters. If that is the limit of what they want, why are you all taking the time to get together for? Load up WoW and save money on the gas spent to drive together.

Ghost49X
2014-03-07, 12:12 PM
You should say if the players and DM get no enjoyment out of it. There are two sides to the screen, and there is zero chance I'm DMing if I'm not having fun.

It sounds like the PCs just want room after empty room filled with monsters. If that is the limit of what they want, why are you all taking the time to get together for? Load up WoW and save money on the gas spent to drive together.

My thoughts exactly...

Rhynn
2014-03-07, 12:14 PM
You should say if the players and DM get no enjoyment out of it. There are two sides to the screen, and there is zero chance I'm DMing if I'm not having fun.

Yes, hence compromise or change.

If you absolutely cannot enjoy running a game without the enemies being smart, and your players absolutely cannot enjoy a game where the enemies are smart, then you cannot run a game for those players. (That seems like a really weirdly specific requirement for having fun GMing, though; but I can sort of sympathise.)


If combat happens with out any form of meaningful strategy or tactics it basically boils down to rolling dice until one side wins then rinse and repeat or complain.

Do the players enjoy that more than what you were giving them? Or do they just dislike it less? If so, switching to a different game may be a good idea - maybe one that removes tactics from the equation and uses a different "scale" of resolution, like FATE or HeroQuest. Or one where combat doesn't have complicated rules and doesn't eat up as much of the playing time, like old-school D&D.


Acting like there's something wrong with the players because they want badwrongfun is silly. What they want may not be what you want, but thats a mis-alignment of preferences, and the solution is to not game together.

Gavran
2014-03-07, 12:34 PM
Load up WoW and save money on the gas spent to drive together.


My thoughts exactly...

No, that's being dismissive and insulting to multiple groups of people because you think you're better at having fun than them. Just because you don't enjoy something doesn't mean it's bad, and just because you don't enjoy two things doesn't mean they're the same.

Now, I'm not saying you're a bad DM, but you were in fact a bad DM for that group (and they in turn were a bad group for you). That's fine. If you can't compromise, you don't play together. Nobody is a bad person because of it, nobody should "go play videogames because you play rpgs wrong." Compromise, do something else together, or move on.

Lorsa
2014-03-07, 12:40 PM
As a general rule, I don't think players should be expected to be anything. You play with them and then you learn how they work and adapt accordingly. Usually roleplaying gets better the more a group plays together (if everyone gets along that is).

I think it's very hard to decide what is "smart combat". Once you end up in a situation where your adrenaline spikes who's to say you're going to make the objectively tactically good decision? Also, you usually only have a few seconds to decide what to do.

Under that kind of pressure "I hit him" seems like a perfectly good response to me. Just imagine, a large orc is coming at you with a two-handed axe. What do you do?


If combat happens with out any form of meaningful strategy or tactics it basically boils down to rolling dice until one side wins then rinse and repeat or complain.

You are forgetting the emotional part of the game here. The feeling of imagining you shooting arrows through the head of a kobold or orc or whatever, of being the cool hero that can take on a bunch of monsters and survive.

Ghost49X
2014-03-07, 12:42 PM
No, that's being dismissive and insulting to multiple groups of people because you think you're better at having fun than them. Just because you don't enjoy something doesn't mean it's bad, and just because you don't enjoy two things doesn't mean they're the same.

Now, I'm not saying you're a bad DM, but you were in fact a bad DM for that group (and they in turn were a bad group for you). That's fine. If you can't compromise, you don't play together. Nobody is a bad person because of it, nobody should "go play videogames because you play rpgs wrong." Compromise, do something else together, or move on.

I'm not saying they're bad people, but now that I'm a player in one of their games should it degenerate to something like that video games would probably be a better way of spending my time for the same amount of fun.

Lord of Shadows
2014-03-07, 01:19 PM
I'm not saying they're bad people, but now that I'm a player in one of their games should it degenerate to something like that video games would probably be a better way of spending my time for the same amount of fun.

Well, that may be true, but there are other benefits to "at the table" gaming, such as social interaction. Stories, jokes, and whatnot.

Question, though: What is going to happen the first time there is combat and your character takes cover in order to snipe at the enemy? What is this "new" DM going to do? What are the other players going to do? Just something to think about, before it happens.
.

Jay R
2014-03-07, 02:52 PM
I think it's very hard to decide what is "smart combat". Once you end up in a situation where your adrenaline spikes who's to say you're going to make the objectively tactically good decision? Also, you usually only have a few seconds to decide what to do.

The perfect decision? Maybe not. But if there is cover from arrows and you don't use it, dying before reaching the archers, that is an objectively bad decision. Even with high adrenaline, in a few seconds, I can decide that not getting hit is better than getting hit.


Under that kind of pressure "I hit him" seems like a perfectly good response to me. Just imagine, a large orc is coming at you with a two-handed axe. What do you do?

Depends on the situation. Options include running away, blocking, climbing a tree, tumbling between his legs, moving to his right so my archers can hit him, etc.


You are forgetting the emotional part of the game here. The feeling of imagining you shooting arrows through the head of a kobold or orc or whatever, of being the cool hero that can take on a bunch of monsters and survive.

I see no evidence that anybody has forgotten about emotions. It's just not relevant here. The emotional part of a game does not in any way interfere with the tactical part. The cool hero Robin Hood who takes on the sheriff's men uses the forest tactically. The cool hero Aragorn who takes on thousands of Orcs uses Helm's Deep tactically. The cool hero Zorro who takes on the Alcalde's soldiers uses hit and run tactics.

The cool hero that can take on a bunch of monsters and survive is either:
a. fighting trivial monsters, or
b. using reasonable tactics.

Having said that, there's no point trying to teach tactics to people who don't want to learn them.


Not that my game focused on combat, however when there is combat I like playing enemies and npcs according to their supposed intelligence I mean kobolds, dwarves, elves and such should behave differently than uncontrolled zombies as far as tactical acumen.

I also don't mind if the PCs make less than sound judgements as they are much more powerful than a few flimsy kobolds and should still be able to take them on. Where my annoyance stands at is when PC ignore possible tactical advantage for the whole fight (after I mentioned it at least 3 times and even provided an example with the npc who was following the party) ...

If I were the DM they had just left, I would be incredibly relieved. Their decision is correct; you are not the DM for them. (This is equivalent to saying that they are not the players for you.)


...then complained that the fight was unfairly hard cause they couldn't just auto attack the random targets until they win (yes some of them didn't care what they were shooting ether)
"I shoot it!" <- PC
"uh, shoot which one?" <- GM
"I don't care I just shoot one" <- PC

Perfect example. They have no desire to learn tactics, so they should have a DM with no desire to use tactics. Meanwhile, you will be frustrated as a DM until you find a group that will fight non-randomly

Lorsa
2014-03-07, 04:03 PM
The perfect decision? Maybe not. But if there is cover from arrows and you don't use it, dying before reaching the archers, that is an objectively bad decision. Even with high adrenaline, in a few seconds, I can decide that not getting hit is better than getting hit.

Depends on the situation. Options include running away, blocking, climbing a tree, tumbling between his legs, moving to his right so my archers can hit him, etc.

And the better trained you are, the more likely it is that you will be doing the smart things.

In any case you don't have time to sit and think for 20 minutes before making the optimal choice which was my point. :smallsmile:


I see no evidence that anybody has forgotten about emotions. It's just not relevant here. The emotional part of a game does not in any way interfere with the tactical part. The cool hero Robin Hood who takes on the sheriff's men uses the forest tactically. The cool hero Aragorn who takes on thousands of Orcs uses Helm's Deep tactically. The cool hero Zorro who takes on the Alcalde's soldiers uses hit and run tactics.

There seemed to me there was a sentiment expressed that can be summed up as "if there are no tactics involved in the combat, there isn't any point with it anymore". I was trying to show that it isn't so, that there can be other benefits to combat scenarios in roleplaying that has nothing to do with engaging intellectually with the scenario.

You are right that they are not mutually exclusive. Nor does removing one means removing the other.

Jay R
2014-03-08, 12:35 PM
And the better trained you are, the more likely it is that you will be doing the smart things.

Of course. But there are two reasons for that, not just one. Part of it is experience - you learn by doing. But also there is attrition. The better trained people don't include the ones who didn't successfully avoid the arrows at first level.


In any case you don't have time to sit and think for 20 minutes before making the optimal choice which was my point. :smallsmile:

Oh, quite true. I don't think we disagree on anything fundamental here.

Lorsa
2014-03-08, 05:36 PM
Oh, quite true. I don't think we disagree on anything fundamental here.

I've always found those to be the best kind of discussions. :smallwink: