Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 6679677" data-attributes="member: 5834">I play suboptimal when it is appropriate for the creature. It isn't appropriate for beholders which in most editions of D&D are very calculating creatures.I find tactical, optimized play interesting. It doesn't bore me as it seems to bore you. That's why I as a DM take playing the monsters in an optimal fashion intent on winning interesting. As a DM it is difficult to try to challenge five players with a vast array of abilities with a single monster. Being able to do that as a DM makes the game fun. If I had to run monsters in some random fashion that allowed the PCs to steamroll them would bore me. A D&D world which exists as itself does not need monsters that act in a foolish fashion that would eliminate their chances of survival. In real life creatures that act in a foolish, suboptimal fashion die. Creatures that learn to do things in an optimal fashion live. I don't see why it would be any different in a realistic world. Giffs that love guns and big explosions, but can't use them in an optimal fashion wouldn't last long in a competitive world with so many races. So the realism card doesn't hold much water to me. Cultures and races/creatures that survive are those that learn to achieve victory by optimizing whatever advantages they happen to have. That's the kind of world that seems realistic to me. I like to apply human thinking to creatures and humans are always looking for advantages to achieve victory over competing species. I assume species that have survived a long time do the same.</blockquote>

Verification