dnd 3.5 - Challenge my party.

[Joseph Rossow]

First of all, I am enjoying this debate with Celebrim, so I'm going to proceed with it.

I understand that I'm getting a little bit of support and a little bit of resistance, but I'm glad to see a healthy discussion. Some are hoping for an end to this discussion, but as I said, I'm enjoying it.

Celebrim,

I'm glad that we can both agree on something: that a DM's job is to entertain. That's something.

Now, I've got some quotations of yours below which I'd like to discuss. Please understand that I am not quoting the majority of the material to save time and space, and that the quoted line is just a "launch pad" for the discussion.

pretty much every player knows at some level that they were supposed to win

First of all, I feel that designing a scenario to be 'won' is the same thing as yanking players through hoops. And secondly, I feel those word "supposed to" are some of the most dangerous and harmful words a DM can use.

"You guys were supposed to find the hidden treasure." "You were supposed to follow the trail of blood." "Everyone was supposed to jump out of the burning house."

A DM needs to be able to react quickly and creatively to dynamic situations that arise from clever (or inept) play. If the group which is "supposed to" win, loses, what do you do? To me, it indicates there is an outcome that the DM isn't prepared to deal with.

Instead, I find it better to think that players "can win" or "can find the hidden treasure," or "can jump out of the burning house." They don't have to, but that option is certainly open to them.

But, what I really want to address about this is covered below.

They (the players) know that I didn't do those things (like using extra monsters or more aggressive tactics) because I wasn't trying to win.

Right there, in my opinion, is the error. Enemies play to win. When the evil cleric realizes that the adventurers keep using the secret door, they'll seal it, or put a horrible trap there. When a battle starts to go poorly, he'll retreat. Enemies want to live and win just as badly as the player's characters and should always, always, always fight to win.

Now obviously, the player characters are the proponents of the plot, and if they cannot move forward, the game will stagnate. But with that said, a DM needs to refuse to dumb-down his enemies because of feelings like "the players need to win." Players are not "supposed to" win, they can win with clever play, ruthlessly effective tactics, and luck.

It's quite easy to create a setting, dungeon or adventure where the players cannot win. Such is not really the perogative of the DM, and if the players discover that the DM has done so, the DM will likely have a revolt on their hands.

lol! I'm suddenly reminded of the Tomb of Horrors. lol!

Anyways, I'd like to argue that the reverse is also true. If a DM puts up a setting, dungeon or adventure where the players cannot (or are not supposed to) lose, they will quickly find they have a group of uninterested, dissatisfied players.

The original poster, olay (who I hope is still reading these), said that they were having difficulty challenging their group, suggesting that they might be creating situation where the players were supposed to win. That is why I have been advocating the implementation of stronger, more durable opponents.

Finally, I do not mean to suggest you are "soft," Celebrim. You clearly have a different approach to structuring adventures than I, which is part of why I'm enjoying this discussion. It's interesting hearing your viewpoints because I feel like we both effectively manage a game using some similar DM'ing tools. But it seems like you took the high road there and I took the low road, so our points of view are different.

As for the "Killer DM/bummed table" thing, I probably should've left that out, but you also set yourself up for that one.

P.S. Sorry to El Mahdi, who's trying so hard to get this thing back on topic. It's clear you're trying to get this thing contained, but as I said, I'm enjoying the discussion (and I hope the original poster "olay" is as well).

As for being a troll. Well, at least I am just controversial and not inflammatory. If I have challenged some of the reader's opinions on how to DM, they have, at least, learned something in defending their own opinions, if not having learned something from mine.

Thanks for reading, guys.

 

[aboyd]

I threw a Horned Devil and 4 Barbed devils at them at lvl 14, and barely managed to scratch them. At one point I also sent a Black Dragon with a CR 3 levels above them at them. Didn't do much.

You know, one of the issues I faced was that I couldn't juggle all of a creature's abilities. It might have damage resistance, or spell resistance, or a free grapple attack (or whatever), and I would forget. So the monster stat block might show a CR of 8, but I was playing the monster at a CR of 6.

My solution was to put each big monster on a 4x6 card. Not only that, but I'd do it hours/days in advance of the game, so I'd have time to stare at the stat block and make sure I knew which attacks were most likely to be useful. On the left side I put what I think would be the monster's most likely sequence of attacks, and on the right side I put the monster's defenses. I took a photo of an example card, which I'll attach.

Maybe doing something similar might help you to remember what to do to make a monster operate at a level that is close(r) to what the manual suggests.