Are players who are tactically effective difficult to run?

[Capellan]

Do players who use unexpected and effective tactics to defeat enemies drive a DM nuts?

Not as much as players who use unexpected and stupid tactics

For some reason, sometimes it seems like my DM goes out of his way to hammer me just because of the way I play the game. Often times, I am able to come up with a way to crush the enemy by minimizing their threat, and this seems to drive my DM crazy at times.

Sounds like your DM is still in 'confrontational' mode with his players.

Do other DM's often feel the same way about a player who uses all the powers at their command and the environment to come up with effective tactics to defeat the enemy?

No - I like players who come up with interesting and effective ideas. It makes for a good game.

Note, however, that if a specific PC is obviously the leader type in combat, and my NPCs are able to see this (eg because s/he issues a lot of instructions and suggestions on the battlefield), then I think it is fair for them to target him/her. After all, killing the officers first is a tried and true combat tactic.

If all the planning was done before hand, however, then my NPCs tend to react to the most obvious threat - which is not always the biggest one out there.

Do many DM's have a particular player that seems to always do something unexpected that really sways battles so that it turns in favor the PC's or turns an epic battle into a cakewalk?

Not so much that, though I do have certain players who can come up with effective tactics and use them well. Their main problem is usually communicating those to the other PCs (and/or stopping other people from doing the aforementioned foolish things).

If so, do you ever inadvertently target the player with attacks not because the player has done something in the current battle, but because you know what that player will do?

I try not to. Hopefully, on the whole, I succeed. At the very least, my players seem to have fun.

I am just wondering if other DM's get annoyed with players who seem to have a knack for D&D tactics. And if so, do you consciously or subconciously target those players to try to prevent them from getting the upper hand?

If it is subconscious, I don't think anyone is going to be able to tell you they are doing it

For myself, I try as much as possible to reward and encourage good play. Targetting players who play well is counterproductive, in my mind. I am much more likely to target those who do something foolish. Call it a carrot and stick approach

 

[AngelTears]

As a GM and player I expect for NPCs and monsters to behave as if they were PCs, or to have their own specific tactics or behaviour.

The only time it becomes problematic is when you as a player are aware of tactics and stratagem that the chosen character would not know. Like an orc knowing how to shore up against an attack using traps or beuilding defensive stockades. Or how to use speak in court to gain the ear of the local baron.

-Angel Tears

 

[Hygric]

I as a Dm only have a probem with players who want to take too long to decide their action. If I get to a six count in my head, you are holding your action weather you want to or not. Mind you, if my current players actually used tactics, I might change my mind.

Although I used to have a player who always came up with intricate battle plans (generally involving many things such as wanting an instant kill because of the ol' twist the head suddenly to snap his neck trick), even though his character had an intelligence score of 7 (it was a 2e paladin).

 

[Guilt Puppy]

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.

A slaughter is alright every once in a while... You do need moments of comparison where the PCs can realize how much they've improved (like slaying a horde of some creature, where months ago one of them had nearly handed you a TPK.) But the majority of the game needs to be a challenge.

I give the PCs chances to use their abilities as much as I find ways to thwart them... Monsters with natural attacks don't break the DR, a Clr4/Ftr12 might have some trouble with SR 12... And they'll still be challenges.

Whats the point of being high level if the rest of the world is too?

What's the point of being high level and wasting your time with the stuff that isn't?

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....)

There's "eliminating all chances for it to work," and "eliminating some chances for it to work." Why in Vecna's name would any high-level NPC not put a dimensional anchor (even one that makes exceptions for them!) on their Fortress of Evil... It's not like they don't know the spell is out there. Of course, if you're having a out in the open, or on any neutral turf, the ability would work for sure... As bought and paid for.

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.

Agreed on setting up a perfect fight -- if I can't picture my NPCs anticipating the kind of attack the players set up, then they won't. If it's "why didn't I think of that?" then the NPCs usually did: If it's "I'd never have thought of that!" then the NPCs usually didn't.

However, I feel quite the opposite way about the cakewalk fight... I agree that encounters shouldn't remain at the same difficulty throughout (balancing player abilities with monster abilities) -- but I feel they should get harder, because now the stakes are higher. It's generally less satisfying if recovering the powerful artifact from the dark priestess' tower at 18th level is easier than fighting the gnoll was at level one.

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.

Nope, I'd never say "at no cost" -- no monetary cost, sure, but there aren't gargantuan scorpions running everywhere. If you've got some good Wilderness Lore I'd let you find one, but it would still take time -- and if there's something happening in the world, that time may or may not be worthwhile to you.

And I'd be terse describing about obtaining the poison (if it was really no problem to obtain) -- I don't find it interesting from a story or character perspective. If you were low-level enough that the fight with the giant scorpion might have some level of danger to it -- well, that's interesting, and suddenly you've travelled far and braved perils to obtain this powerful toxin. That's fun. When it's guaranteed, it's just paperwork -- no point drawing it out.

In short, the way I like to play and the way I like to DM, winning takes more than just a good character sheet. Sometimes that means building encounters to work around certain glaring strengths, and sometimes it means changing encounters that the players are winning more easily than I feel like they should. I've never looked back at an encounter and said "gee, that would have been more fun if I hadn't decided to give those guardians True Seeing at the last minute, and let the PCs just waltz right in and take the important artifact." I do make sure that the players get to use their abilities, but I also make sure they get to use more than that.

Back to the subject: If I wasn't clear on it originally, I do believe in rewarding good tactics (by at least letting them work), and letting them run their course. It's only the uncreative stuff that the enemies are prepared for by default, and even then that doesn't mean it won't work, it just means it's not as effective.

(I'm also talking about major plot events here, not just minor encounters... For those, I play them out as statted, regardless of how easy they end up being. But I want to avoid letting the major battles become anti-climactic -- again, it's about keeping the game fun.)

 

[Victim]

Why would an evil villain not put Dimensional Anchor on his Fortress? Maybe he uses Teleports to move around, has outsider (tp w/o error at will) allies, etc. Maybe he ran out of money before finishing the fortress, so some intended features had to be cut. Even powerful characters have limits to their resources.

I find that most problems come from A) a failure to distinguish between good tactics, rules abuse (bucket of snails + whirlwind attack + great cleave) and stuff that is illegal (instant kill for neck snapping, etc), B) a DM in an unfamilar situation, or C) the confrontational/biased/messed up DM.

Fear the munchkin DM that combines all 3.

 

[DWARF]

One DM I had was very inexperienced. So much so that he had our characters being commanded to attack each other, and doing so because we failed the save for a Charm Person spell!