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

[Reynard]

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?

Mostly because the grabbed player was kind of annoying, I think.

 

[KYRON45]

Mostly because the grabbed player was kind of annoying, I think.

Players are often known for their brilliant decision making.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Only time I've seen a single-file party order is in narrow tunnels, and with non-ranged attackers, that also produces a chokepoint where the front person (usually the best able to take attacks in the first place) can only be attacked by 1-3 human sized opponents depending on the specifics of the layout. That's a whole lot different than the arrow swarm situation.

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.

Which, however, games represent very poorly.

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?

Well, maybe they did and just failed, or were in bad enough shape themselves that they just would have joined them. There are a lot of D&D monsters that are a joke to meet at various levels with a party of six, but a party of two is a very different story.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Mostly because the grabbed player was kind of annoying, I think.

Well, and then there's that. "Friend" was definitely load-bearing in that question...

 

[ezo]

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.

IME this depends on the nature of the ambush. In most of my groups, the Point-Man has good enough stealth that if he is in advance of the main party, the ambushers might not even detect him--so he could be ahead of the party when the ambush begins.

Single-file in any area over 5-feet wide is rare IMO. Two lines, sometimes even, sometimes staggered, is more natural.

Otherwise, who they attack and when also does depend on how much observation they've had. In my example with the hags, they have seen the PCs fight three battles so far:

1. Encountering and defeating the werebear--who then asked for their assistance. (Easy victory for PCs)
2. The darkling band at the edge of the ruined town. (Easy victory for PCs)
3. The quickling patrol inside the town. (Difficult victory, one PC died as was revivified after--PCs needed a short rest).

There are still 4-5 more encounters before the PCs encounter the Hags--who will see probably 2 of those battles or receive reports from their spies.

As such, the Hags are relatively well-informed of the party's strengths.

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.

I don't know about "teachable moments" but I certainly hope my players learn from their mistakes.

They try to avoid combat when possible, but often times it simply isn't. What I regret more than anything is their lack of insight sometimes in taking prisoners. The newer players haven't learned that prisoners can lead to intelligence into the enemy camp (so to say) which can be very beneficial.

 

[Jolly Ruby]

Every DM has their own perspective on this question: do you play the monsters to win?

It depends. I play monsters more as roleplaying what they would do than trying to win a skirmish.

If the party is fighting a griffon its objective is to make one character unconscious, grab them and fly away with its meal. I play goblins less optimally than I play hobgoblins. Orcs are brutal and fight to kill, while drow fight to subdue and capture their foes.

And while playing a dragon I always play to win, and it's the only monster I have a personal rule to never pull punches. If they die, they die.

 

[SLJ]

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


So, acting like PCs and players then?


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.


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.

I am not a frogreaver alt, nor do I know him. I just think he's right.

Yes, 'playing to win' would be playing like PCs and players - that's why I mentioned playing monsters as if they understood the rules of the game. 'Playing to win' would mean focus-firing, and prioritizing double-tapping downed players over all other options, including personal safety, in most situations. I don't do that as a DM, because I would consistently kill the party. Some tables probably would enjoy that kind of gameplay but mine would not.

That's not to say I'd never kill a PC; your example with the grick, I'd definitely have killed that PC. But the question was "do you play the monsters to win," and unless you make killing downed players a top priority, then I would argue the answer for 99% of DMs is "no."

 

[Lanefan]

That's not to say I'd never kill a PC; your example with the grick, I'd definitely have killed that PC. But the question was "do you play the monsters to win," and unless you make killing downed players a top priority, then I would argue the answer for 99% of DMs is "no."

A tactic I've seen (and used, as a player) now and then is for a hurt character to fake unconsciousness in hopes the foe will move on to someone else. It's best done if-when fighting a solo opponent who has to deal with the rest of the party as well and thus can't afford the time to finish the "downed" character off; and when the opponent's attention is elsewhere the "downed" character can sneak away, patch itself up, and either return to the fight or do something at range.

 

[SLJ]

A tactic I've seen (and used, as a player) now and then is for a hurt character to fake unconsciousness in hopes the foe will move on to someone else. It's best done if-when fighting a solo opponent who has to deal with the rest of the party as well and thus can't afford the time to finish the "downed" character off; and when the opponent's attention is elsewhere the "downed" character can sneak away, patch itself up, and either return to the fight or do something at range.

I've never had a player attempt that but I'd definitely let them try, that would be cool. How was the check adjudicated? Deception, slight-of-hand, insight/perception check from the monster, something else?

 

[CleverNickName]

I guess it depends on the monster. Intelligent monsters will focus their attacks, prioritize spellcasters, and double-tap fallen enemies...basically they'll do the same things that my players at the table will do. Non-intelligent monsters will make mistakes, prey on smaller/weaker/wounded targets, retreat in search of easier meals.

Only mindless monsters, like zombies and giant ants, will stand in one place and keep repeating the same attack over and over again, and never surrender or flee. Sadly, this seems to be the "default monster behavior" at many D&D tables I've played at.