DM Knowledge, Critter Cleverness, and Napoleon

[xjermx]

Forgive me, this is a tad long, and not completely well organized. I tend to ramble.

So I had a conversation with one of my players related to our recent sessions of D&D4.

I'll try to be concise. It had to do with the DM altering the behavior of the bad guys in an encounter based on the information that the DM had about the players pending actions.

Example: Player A says, "Okay, I invoke this special power that lets me get double damage on any opportunity attack for the next round." DM says, "Ok cool." and proceeds to move the bad guys in such a way as to not invite opportunity attacks.

In that example, the DM takes the information from the player, and (probably) is influenced by that information. So it brings up a couple of thoughts/questions.

Should the players keep their conditions like this a secret from the DM? This has the mindset that the DM is the "Opponent", which, like Schroedinger's Cat, is both true and not true. My answer is no, I do not think that conditions should be secret from the DM. I trust the group that I play with, and I do not think that they would be dishonest, but the way that D&D is structured, the DM is the final arbiter of the rules and the actions in the game world. I think that on the pro side, having things like this a secret from the guy who is "playing" the monsters does increase the likelihood of true impartiality, it also, I believe, would create more rules discussions and difficulties - for instance, if a monster has a power that makes it immune to some certain form of attack.

Related point - The role of the DM, or at very least, MY role as DM, is not to foil the players and their characters. The DM's job is to craft the world around them and share it with them, to mediate and arbitrate the rules, and to "play the bad guys" in a way that makes for fun and interesting encounters. I'm not interested in doing "Gotcha" gaming, but part of my job is to run fun and interesting encounters. I ribbed one of my players the other day, when he complained about tough monsters, and I told him that I was changing the game style, and that their party would travel from village to village, participating in Bake-Offs, to see who could cook the most delicious cake.

D&D4, with its seriously grid based minis combat, is part chess. I have to wear two hats at once, seeing the pieces in front of me as markers on the field, and moving them in a way to give maximum advantage to my side. Not because my goal is to defeat the players - because it is not, but instead because I am interested in making it challenging, as opposed to simple or easy. On the other hand, I'm supposed to be "playing" the monsters, and not every cave slug has the battlefield prowess of Napoleon. Which is fine, but it makes for sometimes tough decisions for me. "How clever is a shadow bat?" Does it know to stay out of the fighters sword range while trying to get to the juicy guy behind him? My source and reference material is.. lacking.

D&D4 works a little differently than previous editions. This one is all about powers. So it raises the question in my mind of "How do these powers get represented in the game?" I don't want every power use to involve a 30 minute discussion about whether the fighter gives obvious signs that he is doing some super-smashing-power-thingy or not.

If the DM alters the behavior of the monsters in a way that negates a special ability or function that a character has, I'll give that it is in a way penalizing that player. Or at very least negating their Cool Thing.

So, having rambled and jumped around alot - its a tough call. I'm not certain which way to go with this, or how to do it in a way that is 100% fair to my players, and also 100% fair to the critters and the system.

Thoughts?

 

[Switchback]

I don't think you should over think it too much. Just use your best judgment. Some creatures might not be super intelligent but they are crafty and cunning (like Kobolds and Goblins). Others like Ogres might not care about complex strategies trusting their brute strength to crush puny humanoids. Animals and beasts react on even baser instincts.

In the example where the DM intentionally moved to subvert the player's advantage, I think that is not within the spirit of the game. What the creatures know and what the DM knows is not the same thing and he has to keep that thought in mind.

If a DM were in a situation like above (player activates a power to be more deadly) and the DM truly had not decided yet what the monster's were going to do, or whether they would be walking past that character, you could simply roll a hidden dice.

 

[frankthedm]

Example: Player A says, "Okay, I invoke this special power that lets me get double damage on any opportunity attack for the next round." DM says, "Ok cool." and proceeds to move the bad guys in such a way as to not invite opportunity attacks.

In that example, the DM takes the information from the player, and (probably) is influenced by that information. So it brings up a couple of thoughts/questions.

Foes normally DON'T draw AoOs willingly!

 

[FadedC]

Foes normally DON'T draw AoOs willingly!

Hmm, yeah wouldn't foes always move in such as way as to not draw attack of opportunity if they have the choice? I guess it's hard to judge without knowing the exact situation, but unless there was a really good reason why the monsters would have otherwise wanted to draw an AoO, using a power that doubles your AoO damage doesn't magically compel monsters to be stupid and draw them.

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

I think that it depends on the power in question. Some powers when used have an additional effect, and in 4th edition you know these effects as they apply directly to you.

Dire Radiance for example does 1d6+stat damage, and if the enemy moves closer to you on its next turn, another 1d6+stat damage. The enemy, having been affected by it. knows that if he moves closer, he will take the damage, and should be allowed to take that into account.

This ability you used in your example seemed to affect the character himself, and doesn't affect an enemy until they are stabbed by the double damage OA. This I would not allow the enemy knowledge of because there was no clue to what the power did and it didn't actually do anything to the enemy.

 

[keterys]

When anyone (PC or otherwise) uses a power, everyone should be informed what it does and take it into account. So, if the DM uses a power that he does double damage on opportunity attacks, he should let the players know so they can avoid triggering them too.

 

[mlund]

Unless an enemy's defining characteristics include recklessness or gross stupidity they will not be granting the player's Opportunity Attacks without special motivation. They are also fully aware of having the "marked" condition and the like.

Abilities that increase the power or usefulness of your Opportunity Attacks exist as "stickiness" - motivation to keep a monster engaged with you - not as an actual source of combat damage.

For the most part, this makes Feats and Powers that buff your O.A.s relatively poor values at low Heroic levels - since the damage from the basic attacks of most melee types is already deterrent enough.

- Marty Lund

 

[rhm001]

You can always allow the players to announce their attacks in a way similar to what a lot of DMs do for the monsters: rather than "I smack it with a Reaping Strike," they can say something about the way they're waving their weapons around, or the magical effects that appear, or something else. That way, it's not ABSOLUTELY clear what they're doing, (unless they always describe it the same way, but that's their choice,) although everyone (or -thing) has an idea of what the effect might be, and, like the monsters, if they're pulling the trick again a few rounds later, you know enough to doublecheck on how/why they're doing it again.

 

[baberg]

I had an inverse situation in my game this week. The PC Rogue used Riposte Strike against a Dire Rat and was the only character to hit that rat during that round of combat. I felt that I had to attack the Rogue with the Dire Rat when its turn came around because the rat would naturally attack the closest and most recent foe to damage it. That meant that the Rat would get hit again by the Rogue's Riposte.

For any enemies that aren't driven by pure instinct, I'd say that it's fair for the DM to play them as if they were fully aware of what status affects are on them and what it entails. But the mindless creatures - sure, let 'em be stupid and let the PCs get to use some of their conditional effects like Riposte or "1d6 damage when they move towards you". Otherwise the PC powers don't get much use.

 

[James McMurray]

Foes normally DON'T draw AoOs willingly!

This was my first thought as well. If it's possible to avoid an OA, you do. Unless the OA is going to give you some sort of tactical advantage.

Tot he underlying question though: just as it's the players' responsibility not to unload all of their fire attacks as soon as they see a troll (unless they know about regen already), it's the GM's responsibility to keep his OOC knowledge separate from the NPCs. It's impossible to tell if that's what happened in this case, but it's what should happen in almost every case.

I say "almost" because sometimes it's necessary to realistically model an opponent. For instance, if the opponent has ESP, it's hard to judge "would he know X?" so you say yes sometimes and no others. Or if the opponent has a 38 intelligence (+29 mod), it's unlikely that the GM has unearthly intellect to match. So you fudge a little knowledge-wise to maket he opponent seem as intelligent as he should be.