Are players who are tactically effective difficult to run?

[the Jester]

I've never had this problem. It comes down more to organization than tactics. Poor tactics on the DM's part usually amount to things like forgetting a dragon can fly and running encounters off the cuff.

I keep a "combat playbook" with my DM notes when running D&D (I also use a battlemat and counters or minis to keep track). So my NPCs generally have a plan (or a note indicating they're disorganized and how they're disorganized) when going into combat.

I agree with both the statement about poor dm tactics and the solution. Just as in many modules there's a tactics section describing how the bad guy should act in combat, when I preplan things I tend to write up a 'tactics' section. I think it's virtually impossible for a dm to use a complicated villain with many different abilities to its fullest extent without preplanning. After all, the dm hasn't played the villain up from 1st level to 10th level. How can he really know all the guy's tricks like the back of his hand?

 

[Roland Delacroix]

After a while, this starts to get kind of old. I don't want to stifle players creativity, but the combat rules were balanced assuming that players will be doing things like moving and attacking and casting spells. I know my monsters couldn't get away with any of this stuff, so why should the players?

Zerovoid: That is exactlly how I describe things, but modify the description after the roll. Like, the character will describe the attack with the arrow jamming into the orks eye and I will respond with either "Your arrow plunges into the eye socket, piecing its brain....blah, blah" or "The orc senses your attack and ducks his head slightly, you arrow merely bounced off it's thick bony brow." Same with the monsters, i'll describe a deadly attack and then when they miss describe how the player managed to evade it. Makes for (i hope) a more exciting game with rich imagery.

The rule of thumb i follow is; if its a miss, describe it as a miss, if its a hit dexcibe it as a slight wounding effect "your sword scores a line in the Medusa's side...", if its a kill describe it as a good finishing hit "your backhand blow takes its head off, showering you in thick stinking black blood." Lots of fun, but ya gotta be good at description on the fly. Practice makes perfect.

 

[Guilt Puppy]

My players are pretty good with tactics. Any game with a strong combat presence, IMO, needs that sort of creativity to stay interesting... It's not that you have powers that make you powerful, it's that you know how to use them.

That said, it can be frustrating to have difficult encounters thwarted by something clever that I didn't think of. I will adapt an encounter based on PC planning if I feel it's warranted (either because I want it to be a difficult encounter -- easy encounters are no fun as a player -- or because it makes sense). In fact, adapting to player ideas is pretty common practice: The question I have to ask myself is "in the time I spent designing this encounter, I didn't anticipate these tactics... but in the time these NPCs spent fortifying their base / working out strategies / et cetera, would they?"

IMO, that's not cheating the players of anything -- it's just versimilitude. I design my fortresses from the start to be impenetrable, my raiding parties to be savvy and quick to escape, with the implicit inclusion of any strategy my players come up with that seems like it would be appropriately common in the game world. (ie, giving certain guardians True Seeing... Just because I missed the whole Invisibility aspect when I designed them, doesn't mean the epic Cleric who made them in game wouldn't have thought of it.)

Of course, really creative ideas I still let run their course. Basically, it all comes back to that question: "Realistically, should this work?" (Of course, that uses the world's standards of realism, where Stone Shape and Flight and so forth are common.) If it would -- well then, my players end up winning.

And my players do always end up winning, and it's always satisfying, because they always have to work for it.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

...often just declaring that something would not work "because I said so" rather than giving a real reason. We once had another DM who we found that we could not brainstorm in front of, as he would then make significant changes to the module based upon the player's plans.

ugh, totally been there done that. DMs who are making changes to the monster stats and abilities while the characters are doing their pre fight buffing need to be bitch slapped. I think the main problem is when DMs play "against" the PCs. I play with my players, and enjoy a good story. So while I won't make it a cakewalk unless they come up with something really good, I'll usually cooperate with character plans.

Worst expereince of "anti player" thinking I ran into was in a game with each player having mulitple characters that they traded between for different missions. Usually it was a balanced party, but when I was making a deepwood sniper, I commented "we should have a party of the Sniper, the Arcane Archer, the rogue with her bow of centaurs and the battle wizard and make it the 'raining death from afar' mission". The DM's IMEDIATE response was "Cool, then all your opponents will all have displacement, protection from arrows and fortified armor!" One of us was kinda missing the point. And since everyone else liked his DMing style it was apparently me.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Silver Moon]

I think the main problem is when DMs play "against" the PCs. I play with my players, and enjoy a good story. So while I won't make it a cakewalk unless they come up with something really good, I'll usually cooperate with character plans.

I am the same way, feeling that the most important thing is for the game to run smoothly and the player's to have fun.

I once made the mistake of getting a DM from another group to come in and run the monsters during a Pirate attack on a river against the Playing Charater's ship. The monsters took them by surprise and were winning for the first hour of play, then it was about even for the next hour, but after that the tide of the battle turned and the players started to win. The Monster Man then got defensive and kept pushing for every one of his characters to get every break possible and then some. When I made him roll a group initiative instead of for each individual pirate, he then threw a tantrum, accusing me of favoring the players. OK, I'll admit that at that point I was rooting for the player's, as the whole table was pumped up, but my main objective at that point was to wrap up the battle rather than being dragged down by tons of invidivual and rather pointless combats. We did mange to finish the game, but that DM did not speak to me for several months afterwards.

 

[Sanackranib]

Re: Re: Are players who are tactically effective difficult to run?

I think your DM could do himself a favor by layering his threats, learning to coax you in to one of your standard threat-reduction techniques only to surprise you with a threat you had not expected and have no time to massage in your usual manner.

Personally, I like when players get the jump on the bad guys. It's not going to happen every time, and when they don't they will usually pay a stiff penalty. If it happens the majority of the time I am very pleased. If merely sometimes, I am content.

I tend to have many plot layers available to add into a game session. If the players seem to be breezing through one, I make sure a second comes into play. If the players are struggling with two, I save the additional ones for other sessions.

Your DM sounds like he needs to up the ante to keep you challenged.

Ditto! I run the same way. and as a player I am always trying to come up with creative ways to circomvent encounters of put our adversaries on the defensive

 

[mmu1]

I usually don't have a problem with the players using good tactics...

Since there are only so many things you can do in a given situation if you're trying to be as effective as possible, and because the rules impose certain limits, good tactics usually end up being predictable - not that it stops them from working well.

The trouble comes in when they do something dumb but completely unexpected and you have to re-write the whole encounter on the fly, because without that the game is liable to turn in an unenjoyable mess.

I did have trouble, on occasion, with players who thought they were using good tactics... In most cases, this comes down to learning planning from action movies, and coming up with things that just won't ever work unless you have plot immunity. In one case, it was a guy who kept quoting actual military small unit tactics to me and didn't seem to understand that with an abstract hit point system, no morale rules, the predominance of melee combat, and a party of 5 or 6 characters, things just weren't going to work the way he thought they should.

 

[Guilt Puppy]

Usually it was a balanced party, but when I was making a deepwood sniper, I commented "we should have a party of the Sniper, the Arcane Archer, the rogue with her bow of centaurs and the battle wizard and make it the 'raining death from afar' mission". The DM's IMEDIATE response was "Cool, then all your opponents will all have displacement, protection from arrows and fortified armor!" One of us was kinda missing the point. And since everyone else liked his DMing style it was apparently me.

Maybe it was you. The "raining death from afar" mission would get boring pretty quick if it was really that easy. Granted, it's a strong tactic (albeit a very general one), and you should have a an advantage for coming up with it it, but if it was really as easy as "we sit back and kill everything," why bother running the encounter? I'm assuming the DM's response to your suggestion was hyperbole... More to the point of "I'm going to make sure that tactic doesn't make things too easy."

The DM, IMO, should play "against" the players, to a certain degree... I always root for my players to win, but I always make sure that (at the very least) winning isn't guaranteed. That's what makes it worthwhile.

(Of course, as you said, you prefer story-based games, so I could see how your opinion might differ a little... In a really story-based game player involvement is a lot different, and you could just get away with letting the DM describe how handily you defeat your foes, if it's interesting in the context of the larger story. My games to tend to be story-focused, but I try to make the story as dynamic as possible -- oftentimes this makes it a less interesting story, as it doesn't always come together in the way that stories do, but by my standards it's a more fun game. YMMV of course )

 

[Sanackranib]

keeping it real

yes it is up to the DM to keep the encounters balanced and to plan them ahead. he has the disadvantage of planing them himself most of the time and things can be overlooked. but its wrong to adjust the defenses based on the players plans (unless scrying actually IS involved) we had one DM that did this so often that when we were planing our assult protective magic aginst DM BS snooping was used and we would have him leave the romm, decide what we were gonna do and write down the plan for what our NPS were gonna go -round by round if all goes well and then call the DM back in and run it. we would flip up the note cards as each round unfolded. the plans didn't always work but neither was the plan always the exact contingency that the opponents had planned for.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Maybe it was you. The "raining death from afar" mission would get boring pretty quick if it was really that easy. Granted, it's a strong tactic (albeit a very general one), and you should have a an advantage for coming up with it it, but if it was really as easy as "we sit back and kill everything," why bother running the encounter?

honestly, I think when characters reach a certain level, its fun to take them out for a slaughter once in a while. Make your 10/+1 damage reduction good for something. Have the SR 12 actually stop a magical attack. Choose a target and make it not exist anymore. Whats the point of being high level if the rest of the world is too? You might as well just play around 6th for the rest of your character's life if your DM responds to every improvement by eliminating all chances for it to work. (character has an ethereal travel or teleportation ability that they payed out the nose for? Wow! Suddenly every important location is under a massive dimensional lockdown... um, except that it doesn't effect the opponents, only you....)

I think there is as much to be gained from investigating, choosing the right target and setting up the perfect fight as having a "challenging" fight where for all the good your leveling up has done you might as well be back at first wacking goblins. Especially at higher levels I would certainly let my players have a cakewalk fight if it was one that they planned and set up.

A good in game reason for a relitively easy fight would be to accomplish a character goal that you don't want to just hand to them. Said deepwood sniper had massive ranged damage, wild lore, herbalism and safe poison use - and yet was arguing over found dc 15 poisons with the party rogue. If I want to go a gargantuen scorpion hunting, why not? It's so easy I'm not allowed to do it? And yet no dm would say "ok I guess you can just have some dc 36 (2d6 str) poison kicking around at no cost." But if everything has to be a "challenge" you forbid characters to take sensible actions because they would be too easy.

Kahuna Burger