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

[bloodtide]

My default is to make a hard, harsh, dangerous, bloody, gritty, vile, dark, world.

So most foes, and nearly all monsters fight to win and even more kill and slay.

Though, my world is also full of all types of creatures. So there are plenty of "goofy goblins" and "dumb giants" and even "foolish arrogant drow" and more.

But it's all under a cover of "common sense". The goblins guarding the Skull of Doom are NOT the goofy goblins that get thier heads stuck in buckets..yuck yuck yuck. Those goblins are the "rip your character apart into bloody chunks" while the player is still sitting there saying "what?...um...goblins?" and I tell the player their character is dead.

 

[Charlaquin]

My default is to make a hard, harsh, dangerous, bloody, gritty, vile, dark, world.

So most foes, and nearly all monsters fight to win and even more kill and slay.

Though, my world is also full of all types of creatures. So there are plenty of "goofy goblins" and "dumb giants" and even "foolish arrogant drow" and more.

But it's all under a cover of "common sense". The goblins guarding the Skull of Doom are NOT the goofy goblins that get thier heads stuck in buckets..yuck yuck yuck. Those goblins are the "rip your character apart into bloody chunks" while the player is still sitting there saying "what?...um...goblins?" and I tell the player their character is dead.

Careful not to cut yourself on that edge!

 

[bloodtide]

Careful not to cut yourself on that edge!

Have no fear.....I'm an Edge Lord!

Something right with the world today
And everybody knows it's wrong
But we can tell 'em no or we could let it go
But I would rather be a hanging on
Living on the edge!

 

[payn]

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

I try to have each creature act as appropriate for their motivations and morale. This means enemies run away quite a bit, because unlike suicidal adventurers, they actually want to live. Tactics is based on a mixture of Int and Wis, since smart/wise creatures should act appropriately.

Similarly: non-sapient sentients will attack to kill only if hunting and they do not think they will get hurt; they will fight to the death only to defend their young. But they may make a grand display to discourage encroachment on their territory.

And if you mess with a mama bear, you're a grease spot.

 

[SLJ]

I agree with FrogReaver. If you play monsters as understanding the rules of the game, they would know that action economy is 100% the most important factor in determining who wins a fight. Monsters that 'fight to win' would be completely focused on downing whichever PC they can and crushing their death saves immediately, even behaving recklessly in order to keep hitting downed PCs despite other still-standing threats.

A DM that consistently plays monster groups like this in a campaign will sooner or later (probably sooner) TPK the party, even with 'fair' CR matchups. Fights can snowball real fast when a PC dies.

 

[tetrasodium]

"I'm not trying to kill you,
These monsters are trying to kill you". I just wish those monsters could credibly step into those shoes without building encounters that do obviously undercut believability from the first sentence. As a result I feel that I'm 5e the question is moot because the monsters couldn't play to win regardless of my choice.

 

[ezo]

I agree with FrogReaver.

Oh, hello FrogReaver ver. 2. (Or friend of FrogReaver?)

If you play monsters as understanding the rules of the game, they would know that action economy is 100% the most important factor in determining who wins a fight. Monsters that 'fight to win' would be completely focused on downing whichever PC they can and crushing their death saves immediately,

So, acting like PCs and players then?

even behaving recklessly in order to keep hitting downed PCs despite other still-standing threats.

Now, I don't by this. Sometimes, maybe, but IME only if there are sufficient numbers to handle double-tapping the downed PCs.

It also depends on the level of the encounter. High-level single BBEGs and such might do so because the ability of other PCs to bring the downed one back into the fight is so high. However, even then there should be a reason why the creature would know to finish off the downed PC before dealing with other threats.

A DM that consistently plays monster groups like this in a campaign will sooner or later (probably sooner) TPK the party, even with 'fair' CR matchups. Fights can snowball real fast when a PC dies.

Which is why it is a strategy players use against monsters. Removing one monster greatly increases the odds in the PCs' favor as well.

The only time this is not a good strategy is when individuals are fairly evenly matched. In such cases focus-fire can lead to overkill and waste of force.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

When violence has broken out, usually the opposition is in a situation where they are either greedy, desperate, or devoted enough that backing down isn't on the table. Hence, for that reason, many of the opposition forces I portray as GM do "play to win" because they aren't willing to accept what happens if they lose.

Part of this comes from the specific types of antagonists I advanced. Assassin-cult members aren't likely to betray the faith they've killed for multiple times before. Gangers hopped up on black dragon steroids aren't likely to be thinking straight and are very likely to obey whatever orders their superiors gave them. And Lovecraftian monster-worshippers are particularly unlikely to listen to reason, given most of them are actually insane to begin with.

The Shadow Druids are particularly useful in this regard, because their "grunt" forces are shroombies (fungus-animated corpses--not techncially undead, but still susceptible to most things undead are), and most of their leadership has been subsumed into the dark-fungus hive mind, meaning most of them are super committed, and even the few that are not yet infected with the slower "your soul gets absorbed" version of the fungus are generally pretty hardcore dedicated to the cause.

This doesn't mean people can't be saved (they can, even a relatively high-level Shadow Druid that hadn't been absorbed yet), nor that there aren't possible allies here (there are; around half of the "clergy" of the assassin-cult considers the party Bard to be their prophesied destroyer-savior, and the "lay" folk are moving in the direction of supporting him too.)

But, as a general rule, a lot of the people willing to engage in violence have a relatively low surrender rate. That's mostly a thing for hired thugs, who haven't been a major obstacle in a long time, or mere belligerents without any commitments, which aren't as common a threat. Animals will often break and run if an attack goes poorly for them though...but they may not break and run soon enough. The nasty things that live in the deep desert are ill-used to prey that bites back.

 

[Piperken]

The focus on the particulars of focus fire seems a bit strange to me. I mean let's be honest, an ambush where the party is single file (a very common occurrence in games) would typically involve the ambushing group attacking the very 1st person they see. Or in the case if they've been observing the party for some time unnoticed, attacking whomever they perceive would go down quickest.

Irrespective if there's defense for it (ambushers also try to pick places where cover is minimal), that's... what happens when soldiers in small groups fight each other? It leads to stuff like friendly fire incidents also, in cases where intelligence on one side or the other is not good, or just plain bad.

Currently, I place higher emphasis on monster encounters as teachable moments. The table is in the process of figuring out when and how to use their class abilities in combat. They're vastly unfamiliar with what different creatures there are and what they do, even though they may know out-of-game what e.g. trolls are and what kinds of capabilities trolls possess, like regeneration. They're arriving to moments of, oh, one of our party members can speak Draconic, maybe we can talk to them! They're learning that sometimes it's better to avoid combat, or try something clever or out-of-the-box.

They encountered their first troll when they were level 2. At the beginning of that encounter, a couple of npcs shouted quite clearly, Leave the troll to me!

After a few rounds, the rogue, for whatever reason decided to waltz in. They got clocked once to 1 hp. They disengaged after that. They now know better.

Re:

...I decided to have the grick grab the PC and retreat to its lair to eat the PC, becuase it was a hungry predator. The other player ran and the captured PC was devoured...

My initial thought when I read this wasn't over any lack of fairness, it was, why did the other player not attempt to rescue their friend?