D&D DMing is not playing chess against the players!!

[ggroy]

Personally I don't really metagame monsters a lot unless they have really good intelligence and would warrant it (the Mithril dragon I ran at epic ignored the fighter with his teleports and mercilessly crushed the cleric before turning on the wizard for example).

Otherwise a zombie is going to attack whatever hit him last or whatever is closest. He doesn't care, he's a zombie.

Creatures that fight like tactical geniuses do so because they are. Dumb creatures are still smart enough to use things like terrain and such, but they aren't inherently aware of how the "game" works to take every advantage out of it. Such as by realizing they can easily fell a summoned creature in 4.5 to 6 blows instead of 9 or whatever.

I usually tend to play the monsters on the dumb side. Typically I roll a d4 or d6 to determine which player a monster will attack.

If the monsters are somewhat smarter, I'll play them similar to the "gang that couldn't shoot straight".

 

[ExploderWizard]

As in, he's DMing the NPCs consistent with their nature, but without an eye towards "beating the players" (which, as DM, he could do at any instant)- so the NPCs are probably not going to have metaknowledge of Party tactics (unless there's an in-campaign reason for them to do so); they won't have a ready counter to each and every possible thing the party can do.

Exactly so. If the players have any knowledge about their opponents then you can bet that they will use it. The same goes for NPC's. What they know, they can use. Having no actual information at hand, an NPC should react according to it's level of intelligence and available abilities and resources.

Another thing to remember for NPC's/ mosters is motivation. This will not always be to try and defeat the party in combat to the best of their ability. A hungry monster wants food, a bad guy going about his evil business might want to escape so that he can size up the opposition. Unintelligent contstruct/undead servants will simply follow orders and so on. If the basic motivation of the npcs are known then likely actions and tactics are easy to determine.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I don't think there's anything wrong with him being "narked off" by it, within reason. Sure, there are lots of ways to play the game; doesn't mean a guy can't be miffed that the way he prefers isn't more popular. I think it only gets to be a problem if he starts actively trying to prevent people from playing that way, or insulting/attacking them for doing so. (And I don't feel the OP crossed that line.)

Me? My personal tastes fall strongly on the storyteller side of things. I certainly don't begrudge other people their fun if playing differently, but yeah, when the pendulum seems to swing too far away from my preferred style, it sometimes rubs me the wrong way.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Monsters should have a basic to solid grasp of tactics. At the very least, monsters understand the concept of focus fire.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Folks play the game for different reasons.

It only gets to be a problem for an individual when the design of the rules heavily leans toward one reason over others, if that reason isn't the reason that individual plays.

I don't think a tactical thinker would be happy with Rock Paper Scissors as a resolution or balancing system.

I don't believe a narrative thinker would be happy with constant character death.

Etc.

I think D&D has a certain responsibility to tow the middle line pretty well, since it is, for most gamers, the only rpg, but various editions have favored one side or the other of that equation over the years.

Some folks like tactical combat, and that's cool, as long as I also get to like my evocative storytelling, and we can play the same game at the same table and both get at least some of what we want.

 

[The Shaman]

As in, he's DMing the NPCs consistent with their nature, but without an eye towards "beating the players" (which, as DM, he could do at any instant)- so the NPCs are probably not going to have metaknowledge of Party tactics (unless there's an in-campaign reason for them to do so); they won't have a ready counter to each and every possible thing the party can do.

*scrolls up, re-reads first post*

Ooooooohhhhhhhh.

So that's what that was all about? Huh.

Well, yeah, if you care at all about verisimilitude, then of course the opponents should respond appropriately to their knowledge of the situation and consistent with their behavior and abilities.

And if those same opponents have the means to gather intel on the adventurers, then they should be all means use it to their maximum ability.

This is controversial?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This is controversial?

Trust me- before the term RBDM showed up, there was the Killer DM.

I'll never forget the first 3 DMs I played under. The first guy was authoritarian but fair. The second guy was pure cool. The third guy?

The third guy put a Huge Ancient Red Dragon in the first main room of the 1st level of a dungeon into which a 1st level party was venturing.

 

[Nifft]

or at least, I don't think it should be

Several threads on the WOTC forums in past few months have really narked me off big time
I like 4th ed, but I do not like this kind of thought process I hear in relation to playing it (or any edition)

You hear people discussing how well the game's design holds up under mathematical scrutiny, and this bothers you... why?

"Ignorance ≠ Bliss", -- N

 

[Orius]

The old "DM as storyteller" vs. "DM as chess opponent" debate has been around forever - Read some very old discussions and you'll notice that it is nowhere a new phenomenon. Most DMs will be somewhere in between, and it's up to the group to find a play style that fits them.

What shifted is the gamist side of the equation: Previous editions were about evading deadly traps, gotcha-monsters (always carry a blessed crossbow bolt in case of rakshasas etc.), high level spell countermeasures, wording of the wish spell and other mind games. 4th edition moved towards more tactical, but also less nasty and more predictable play.

Trust me- before the term RBDM showed up, there was the Killer DM.

I'll never forget the first 3 DMs I played under. The first guy was authoritarian but fair. The second guy was pure cool. The third guy?

The third guy put a Huge Ancient Red Dragon in the first main room of the 1st level of a dungeon into which a 1st level party was venturing.

This. This whole debate has always been in the game, it was firmly in place during 1e, and probably goes back to the three booklets. Part of it goes back to the game's roots in wargaming, read about some of Gary's early games and there was an element of him and his players trying to beat each other and "win" the game. I think it's a stage that a lot of players get into when they first play the game, though some move out of it. Those who stay with the mentality become the Knights of the Dinner Table. That's fun to watch, not quite as fun to play.

The elements of it have changed a bit. In the old days it was stuff like "no saving throw" or letting 1st level parties run into really old red dragons or liches, or Demogorgon or something. These days, it sounds like DMs pick opponents or challenges deliberately tailored to counter the party's strengths and weaknesses. Overall it's the same thing, I'd say old school was more general due to larger parties and a wider level range, while today things get more specific as the game is more tightly structured. The details matter little though, because it's all about the DM and players trying to beat each other.

And it's not just D&D either, it's in a lot of RPGs. Just check this link:

Killer Game Master - Television Tropes & Idioms

In particular the entire Tabletop RPG section, the first all the Penny Arcade links, Al Bruno's rant, etc.

Not that it's all bad, part of 1e's philosophy seemed to be to challenge the players, and thus encouraged some degree of metagaming. Today metagaming is frowned upon, if you're playing someone with a single digit Int, you're discouraged from playing him like a tactical genius. This newer school of though goes back to the 2e days, and occasionally it seems to be less a matter of encouraging role-playing and verisimiltude and more a matter of a poor DMs encouraging the party to play with idiot balls so the DM doesn't have to come up with anything creative.

Even past the metagaming, sometimes a dash of killer DMing can liven up a campaign. But like any spice, too much will leave an overpowering and unpleasant aftertaste.

Personally, I like slipping the occasional deathtraps into my games. I usually set things up so the PCs can escape/survive/whatever, I just never bother to tell the players how....

Remember, you're not a successful DM until you've killed your first PC.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, I like slipping the occasional deathtraps into my games. I usually set things up so the PCs can escape/survive/whatever, I just never bother to tell the players how....

"So, Saruman, you expect me to talk?"

"Nooo, Gandalf...I expect you to die!"

*dum dee dee dee dum dum dum dum
dum dee dee dee dum dum dum dum
de daa da DA-DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA da da da*