Monsters like a challenge!

[FireLance]

I was reading through the "Heroes of Hesiod" mini-game pdf when I noticed the following under "Adventure Notes" (page 10):

"Running the Monsters:
Monsters like a challenge! In general, monsters like to attack whichever character has the most hit points, as they find characters with few hit points to be less of a challenge. They also almost never attack the same character twice in a row, as that would be boring."​

I guess the idea behind this advice is to keep all the players in the game longer, since the lower a character's hit points, the less likely he is to be targeted by a monster.

On the other hand, I can't help thinking that it's unrealistically bad tactics. Instead of focusing on the character who is more accurate or who deals the most damage, a monster who may be a hit or two from death itself stubbornly insists on attacking the healthiest enemy it's facing?

So, what do you think of this advice? Applicable in most games? Okay when you're playing with 6-year-olds, but not something you would follow in a game with adults? Bad even when you're playing with kids? Something else?

 

[Blackbrrd]

I am playing with experienced players and my monsters and npc's usually try to kill the characters the best they can. Going for somebody vulnerable seems like a good option to them. On the other hand my monsters aren't using "perfect" tactics, as we have an understanding about no backtracking* and about 6 seconds of time to think before you declare your action or ask relevant questions.


* We allow one backtrack for the players and one for the dm each encounter, for a total of max 2 backtracks.

 

[On Puget Sound]

it's pretty clearly advice intended to soften the game for younger players; I don't know any DMs who play this way. At worst, they might have unintelligent monsters roll randomly for whom to attack.

 

[S'mon]

It'd be very silly as a general rule. But note that not only is this game for young children, it's explicitly a _training_ scenario for the PCs in the game. It makes sense in context.

 

[FireLance]

It'd be very silly as a general rule. But note that not only is this game for young children, it's explicitly a _training_ scenario for the PCs in the game. It makes sense in context.

Yeah, but it's supposed to be a training session with *real* monsters that inflict *real* injuries which the PCs have to use *real* healing potions to recover from.

I can just about justify it to myself if I assume the monsters are dominated.

 

[vagabundo]

Yeah, but it's supposed to be a training session with *real* monsters that inflict *real* injuries which the PCs have to use *real* healing potions to recover from.

I can just about justify it to myself if I assume the monsters are dominated.

Do you really want to make some six year old start crying because the monster is picking on him?

 

[FireLance]

Do you really want to make some six year old start crying because the monster is picking on him?

Blah blah blah character. Blah blah blah learning experience. Blah blah blah No! Blackleaf! Blah blah blah gene pool.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Obviously, the monsters are being dominated. Possibly by some wizards. They might live near the seashore.


RC

 

[FireLance]

Obviously, the monsters are being dominated. Possibly by some wizards. They might live near the seashore.

A wizard did it? That. Explains. Everything.



(At the rate this thread is going, I ought to go back and re-tag it "Humor". )

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, after the "fudging" threads, I could use a little levity.

RC