D&D General Playing to "Win" - The DM's Dilemma

My players will hear me regretfully say "this is what the fiend/bandit/evil count would do..." as they focus fire the most dangerous member of the party, or try to kill the healer, etc. But that's far from all the time... Just like they'll hear "well the zombie horde just goes for the nearest living thing" unless there's cause for them to change targets, possibly by being attacked etc.

So I guess tactics are included under "whatever seems like what would be happening in the situation." I frequently look at a baddie's stats to determine their tactics, and mix that with their nature.
 

log in or register to remove this ad




I must have misunderstood your post, then. What di you mean by

or what were you trying to get at.

Sorry I guess I could have been more clear. The point im trying to make is That playing monsters to win is an illusion. Or more bluntly a lie.
 


Sorry I guess I could have been more clear. The point im trying to make is That playing monsters to win is an illusion. Or more bluntly a lie.
I don't think it is, if the GM is following the rules of the game in setting up encounters and in play. Of course the GM can always throw 1000 tarrasques at the party, but that isn't what we are talking about here.
 

Sorry I guess I could have been more clear. The point im trying to make is That playing monsters to win is an illusion. Or more bluntly a lie.
Well, given the point of the OP, that is sort of insulting and demonstrates you really don't understand the concept or why "Win" was put in quotes in the thread title.

The DM can always TPK the players--that isn't the point.

I don't think it is, if the GM is following the rules of the game in setting up encounters and in play. Of course the GM can always throw 1000 tarrasques at the party, but that isn't what we are talking about here.
Precisely.
 

My own feeling is that I'll play the opposition as intelligently as I think they should be played, and that varies according to opposition. But tactics aren't just about "winning"; they're about the opponents aims and the tools they have in combat to express those aims. Very rarely is "kill that one specific PC" part of those aims, though it may be a road along the way if a particular PC is obviously an important component to the fight.

The reason I can do this is if I don't want a particular set of opponents to do their all, I don't put those out as a fight situation in the first place. I don't have an entire field full of archers, for example, because they're too difficult to defend against in too many games so what is the point in demonstrating that?
 

I play the monsters to win, for a definition of “win” that means “achieve their goals.” No living creature engages in violence for no reason (though some do at least seem to engage in it for the reason of entertaining themselves). So I always try to keep in mind, why is this creature fighting? What does it want that fighting might help it get? Does it want that thing badly enough to risk injury or death for? Can it see an easier or safer way to get what it wants? The answers to these questions inform how I run the creature in combat.
 

Remove ads

Top